Archive for January, 2007
www.soccerway.com/news/2007/January/29/materazzi-goes-down-easily-says-domenech/
Boy, Raymond Domenech is really having a hard time dealing with the World Cup loss, eh? It seems he can’t refrain from negatively commenting on anything about Italy. Ray, let….it….go. Imagine if Dino Zoff would have complained months after Italy’s 2-1 loss to France at Euro 200 despite outclassing les bleus? How about if Cesare Maldini lamented continuously after falling to eventual champions France in a shoot-out and in a match France played poorly?
That’s right: people would call them sore losers. The fact is that they took those difficult losses and moved on. No derogatory comments were made towards France in public.
Too bad France has reacted like they have. Sometimes in sports the best team does not win. Or sometimes the best team does not play up to par and manages to eke a victory. Italy was the best team in the tournament overall. France was not. The French themselves caught some major breaks in 2006.
Both are great soccer countries. Move on. No one said life was fair.
Of course, reading the threads about the incident (which most people did not see) it’s also a chance for many to spew their anti-soccer and prejudiced views.
Here’s the thing about this particular head butt that elicited a comment from Ray. Sampdoria player Del Vecchio is an aggressive type of player.With the play in question, Del Vecchio slid and tried to poke the ball past Inter Milan goalie Julio Caesar. If one paid close attention, he tried to clip Caesar. The best way to describe it is when a hockey player taps, pokes or jabs at the goalie’s glove after he freezes the puck. We all know how defenders feel about that.
Materazzi simply confronted Del Vecchio by getting in his face. He, gulp, was right to do so. He served notice to Sampdoria that the Inter defense was not going to tolerate this sort of act. Furthermore, he stuck up for his team mate. Del Vecchio reacted by, interestingly. head butting him. Could Materazzi stayed on his feet? Perhaps. It is interesting to note that he did get a cut lip suggesting Del Vecchio managed to connect.
Again, I’m on record as saying that I’m not the biggest Materazzi fan. However, we should not rush to judge and compare this to the Zidane incident. No matter how many times we will revisit this, Zidane has no one but himself to blame for his stupidity. Domenech can hide behind a thin veil of fabricated justifications all he wants but it won’t deviate from this hard truth. Gosh, what if the tables were turned?
Domenech, who suffers from selective memory syndrome, is hoping to deflect the absurd actions of Zidane onto Materazzi any chance he gets. Say what you want, Materazzi did not violently attack anyone. His goal is to get under the skin of a player. The reactions of Del Vecchio and Zidane were the work of players who could not keep their cool. Both received red cards. End of story. Point final.
It just so happens that Materazzi is always in the middle of a controversy. We can debate whether he is the type of player teams want but spare me the anti-Italy rhetoric that has followed it. Soccer is filled with far worse offenders than The Matrix as he is known. Former Italy player Marco Tardelli is on record saying that Materazzi – although right – could have approached it differently. Maybe. But that’s not the point.
What makes Domenech’s comments remarkable – if not hypocritical – is the fact that there are a few players “who go down easy” on his own team. Try Malouda and Henry for starters. Domenech is best to restrict his comments to his team and to look in the mirror first.
Raymond, stuff a pastry in your mouth have an allonge and just shut up.
When science and gay sheep collide.
www.nytimes.com/2007/01/25/science/25sheep.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
No one does a retirement ceremony better than the Montreal Canadiens. Easily one of the best run organization from a PR standpoint, the Habs know how to connect present hockey fans with the past. There’s a certain regal aura to the whole process. It’s akin to a President’s State of the Union address for the Canadiens have historically been a true and revered great sports organization with a powerful tradition.
Among the more stirring moments of such a ceremony is the ascent. The moment where the ghosts of Forum’s past are summoned and the banner is raised to be immortalized. As it slowly rises it conjures up surreal and majestic inner feelings and images of magnificent nostalgia for all hockey fans.
Tonight they will honour and retire Ken Dryden’s #29. Dryden was the goaltender for les Canadiens during the dominant and dynastic years of the 1970s. I’m not sure why management are slow to coming around to honoring some of the legends on those clubs but at least they are doing it. Earlier this year it was Serge Savard now it’s Dryden’s turn. Next Larry Robinson – I hope – even Bob Gainey, Toe Blake and Elmer Lach.
It’s pretty remarkable what Dryden achieved in only eight short seasons: Five Vezinas, one Calder, one Conn Smythe, a .790 winning percentage, 2.24 goals against and 46 shut outs in 397 games. Above all, he helped back stop the Habs to 6 Stanley Cups. Easily one of the greatest goaltenders ever – Fort Knox type defense notwithstanding. Not to mention being on the cover of Sports Illustrated three times. Now that’s recognition.
While hockey fans pay tribute to 29 we should also remember the loss of Lorne ‘Gump’ Worsley who died of a heart attack this week-end. Worsley had some of his best seasons while playing for nos glorieux. When compared to the 1950s and 70s edition of the Habs the 60s tend to be overlooked despite the awesome successes. Worsley was part of four Stanley Cup celebrations in 1965,66,68 and69 and earned the Vezina in 66 and 68.
Gump was best remembered for his wit and sense of humour. During the early part of his career with the Rangers – when he was regularly facing over 40 shots a night – he was asked, “Which team gives you the most trouble?”
He replied, “The New York Rangers.”
Merci les boys.
For the past 10 days it’s been typically and bitterly cold in Quebec averaging -15c. Not the worst cold snaps we’ve had but close enough. It got me thinking abut an article the local “sports” pages ran regarding global warming.
The month of December presented us Montrealers with fairly warm weather for that time of year. So what better thing to write about, the editor thought, about global warming and hockey? That’ll get the commoners all worked up. Hit them where it hurts the most in this province: with hockey. As if that wasn’t enough on its own they decided to stretch it out. Mainly, they asked the hard hitting rhetorical questions: What kind of an affect and impact will “global warming” have on the development of Canadian hockey players? The logic was that if there are no outdoor rinks for kids to master their skills as a result of the earth turning into an oven we would have the equivalent of barbarians on skates.
And they say intellectualism is alive and well. What a bunch of baloney.
So much for that. It’s fricken freezing and the rinks are packed with kids. Sometimes the weather goes in cycles. Ask any climatologist about that. We’re probably in a warming period. Global warming is turning out to be big business. I bet you that in 20 years we probably won’t be “alerting” people about any of this. Questions: Are guys like Gore any different from apocalyptic Christian fundamentalists? One uses scientific “facts”and the other the bible. Roger Bacon would probably loathe both.
Go forth and try and save the earth. You probably won’t win. Something tells me Mother Nature has a hand in all of this. Still, it’s a fair debate in small doses and with fair minded people. I’ll listen but spare me the hockey will whither nonsense. That’s what we mean by hyperbole. All they have done is contribute to the hysterics of modern mass media. We claim to be progressive but we’re no different than extremists from times past.
The truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle.
The rest is pure garbage.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZMEE7tlq6A
I was never prouder that day in 1987. Once upon a time we knew how to stand up. Then again, what did I know? I was a dimwitted teenager.
We couldn’t beat the godless commies militarily but on the ice we were even. Canada was on their way to win the gold medal that year and a good conspiracy mind would claim that the Soviets started the fight to keep that medal out of Canadian hands. Sure, I instinctively knew we probably would be disqualified but it was still priceless. The name Everett Sanipass will stay with me forever.
Bring back old style 70s and 80s brawls! As for all these journalists who want fighting out of the game – the bottom line is that they may think they are smarter than the fans but the reality is that everybody loves a good fight.
For Quebec nationalists, the Plains of Abraham fought in 1759 is a fight they can never forget. Yet, the war had consequences that went far beyond the territory of what was then New France. For this is the one battle that conclusively changed North America – and the world – forever.
In the 18th century, highly centralized France was the most powerful society in Europe – and this included its military. France’s North American exploits and adventures up to that point were a romantic adventure of brave Frenchmen exploring and mapping out the continent’s most remote parts. The coureur de bois are forever intricately immersed in the image of les Canadiens,. Even leaving the birth of an indigenous people in the Métis in its wake.
However, New France faced massive obstacles she could not overcome. Despite managing to create a hinterland empire that stretched from Quebec through Detroit and St. Louis into New Orleans, the French could not pin the British to the East coast for long. In the 70 years or so that led up to the war for Canada’s soul, New France’s population was approximately 140 000 scattered settlers. As my physiotherapist – who was from France – once told me a few years back, “New France never had a chance.”
By this he explicitly pointed to the strong, independent and resourceful 1.5 million settlers of the Thirteen Colonies. Despite France’s military advantage in Europe, she could not eclipse England’s navy and its more able military captains.
The two tragic heroes on the Plains of Abraham were General Wolfe for England and General Montcalm for France.
The Plains of Abraham was the conclusion to a protracted war that included The Spanish and Austrian Wars of Succession as well as the Seven Years’ War (known as the French and Indian War to Americans).
By the time the peace treaty was signed in 1763, Canada was ceded to Britain. While Spain – who fought against Britain – lost its possessions in Florida. Only New Orleans did not fall into British hands. Instead passing from French to Spanish authority. It eventually returned to France. However, needing to improve his treasury and seeking American friendship, Napoleon sold the state to the United States.
Interestingly, Canada was not the only place France was expelled from. Far away into a distant land in India – presently the world’s largest democracy – the French lost to Britain once again .
Of course, like with most of history, speculation is bound to capture our attention. The problem with “what ifs” is that while it can be intoxicating it ultimately fizzles in its endless ruminations. Still it’s worth noting what historians have pondered regarding the Battle of the Plains of Abraham. Some of the more salient ones that stood out for me revolves around what could have been for France. For example, what if Montcalm had waited for all his troops to rejoin before launching what proved to be a premature attack on the British line? Or what if his successor General Levis had received early reinforcements from France to strengthen her chances of victory?
Would New France have met a different fate?
Intriguing, as this may be it did not – in the final curtain call of history – happen. Britain won and the rest was, well, history. French Canada has since survived but one can’t help but wonder about how things could have been had France won. What if indeed.
For those seeking additional readings on the Plains of Abraham consider:
C.P. Stacey, Quebec, 1759
Rene Chartrand, Quebec, Battle of the Plains of Abraham Osprey Publishing
While the Plains of Abraham was a significant war, there have been other major wars in world history with far reaching implications. Here are the 15 most decisive battles according to 19th century historian Edward Shepherd Creasy. Of course, this is not exhaustive and we could easily debate this it still is an interesting list for military history buffs.
The Battle of Marathon (B.C. 490)
Defeat of the Athenians at Syracuse (B.C. 413)
The Battle of Arbela (B.C. 331)
The Battle of Metaurus (B.C. 207)
Victory of Arminius over the Roman Legions under Varus (A,D. 9)
The Battle of Chalons (451)
The Battle of Tours (732)
The Battle of Hastings (1066)
Joan of Arc’s Victory over the English at Orleans (1429)
The Defeat of the Spanish Armada (1588)
The Battle of Blenheim (1704)
The Battle of Pultowa (1709)
Victory of the Americans over Burgoyne at Saratoga (1777)
The Battle of Valmy (1792)
The Battle of Waterloo (1815)
Welcome to another installment of Five Questions where interesting people are asked, well, FQ’s. Today’s guest Jake Norton is not only a mountain climber but a speaker, photogrpaher and guide. Check out his bio via his link.
Jake blogs at Mountainworld.
Mountain World Photo
1) Rhetorical question first. Do you have rocks in your head?
Well, perhaps. In all seriousness, I think people – myself included – do question both my intelligence and sanity when the amount of time I’ve spent on Everest and in the mountains in general are taken into account. But, I have had some wonderful experiences in the hills, and climbing truly is my driving passion in life…So, I guess that makes it all worthwhile. It is nice to be able to do something you love for a living!
2) I read on your website that you discovered the remains of a British pioneer climber. Was that something you set out to do or did you stumbled upon it? Did you know who it was? What went through your mind? Briefly walk us through this fascinating experience.
Yes, in 1999 our team – the 1999 Mallory & Irvine Research Expedition – discovered the remains of pioneer climber George Leigh Mallory. Our goal that year, as evidenced by the name of the expedition, was to go to Everest and attempt to solve – or at least shed more light on – the mystery of Mallory & Irvine.
For those who don’t know the story, Mallory and his climbing companion, Andrew Comyn Irvine, were last seen about 800 feet from the summit of Everest on June 8, 1924, by their teammate Noel Odell. The big question was, of course, did they reach the top that day, some 29 years before Sir Edmund Hillary and Sherpa Tenzin Norgay climbed to the summit via the easier Southeast Ridge on May 30, 1953. While Mallory & Irvine would not get a summit certificate if they reached the top (it’s important to make the round trip!), it still would be an amazing accomplishment if they did reach the top and has been a fascinating mystery for years.
In 1999, our team was comprised of our leader, Eric Simonson, historian Jochen Hemmleb, doctor Lee Meyers, film crews from BBC and PBS-NOVA, a climbing/search team of Dave Hahn, Andy Politz, Tap Richards, Conrad Anker, and myself and, most importantly, our stellar Sherpa team, who as always did the lion’s share of the work on the hill.
After a month-and-a-half of work on the peak, on the morning of May 1, our climbing team set out from 25,600 foot Camp V on the North Ridge with the aim of doing a first cursory search of an area we identified as the Mallory Basin – it was where we thought we had the best chance of finding evidence of Mallory & Irvine. After and hour and forty-five minutes, Conrad called a mandatory team meeting, and I could see him about 50 meters away from me frantically waving his ice axe. I climbed over to him and was immediately stunned into silence, for there was Conrad standing over the remains of what had become our hero: he had found George Mallory.
It really was a stunning moment – or series of moments, as we spent about 4 hours with George that day. I still get goose bumps to this day remembering it, and thinking about how humbling it all was. For there we were in $1000 down suits and $1000 boots, standing over the remains of a man who had climbed at least as high as we were: he did it in silk shirts, a tweed coat, and woolen knickers. It definitely gave me perspective on the pioneer climbers and all they accomplished – summit or not.
3) You climbed Everest twice via the Northeast and Southeast ridges. Could you describe these ridges and what are the significant characteristics of each? Was Everest your most difficult challenge?
Correct…I’ve now been on 5 Everest expeditions, 4 to the Northeast Ridge (climbing via Tibet) and one to the Southeast Ridge, climbing via Nepal. I reached the top first from the Southeast Ridge in 2002 while shooting and expedition for Discovery, and then again in 2003 shooting stills and video for the Outdoor Life Network’s Global Extremes reality TV series.
These two ridges are the most common climbing routes on Everest, and see probably 98% of the climbing traffic. While the Northeast Ridge was the route of the first attempts on Everest (all pre-World War II, 1921, 1922, 1924, 1933, 1935, 1936, & 1938), the technically easier Southeast Ridge was the first definitive summit route and has been the route of choice for most parties since 1953.
The main differences between the two ridges are a question of objective versus subjective hazards. The Southeast Ridge route, while easy from a technical climbing standpoint, ascends through the Khumbu Ice Falls – one of the most dangerous ice falls anywhere in the world. This mass of ice – literally a glacial waterfall – moves an average of 3 feet per day during the climbing season. Thus, there is immense objective hazard on this route: we climb through the ice fall early in the morning before things have heated up and blocks begin to topple over. But, it is incredibly dangerous and although we do our best to minimize the risks of the ice fall, to some extent you are rolling the dice and hoping nothing collapses around you. However, once through the ice fall, the route is very simple and straightforward: you travel up through the Western Cwm, ascend the steep Lhotse Face through Camp III to Camp IV at the South Col, and then climb to the summit. The only marginally technical section on the route is the Hillary Step at about 28,800 feet – but that is now quite easy given the traffic it has seen over the years.
In contrast, the Northeast Ridge has almost no objective hazard on the route. The only objective dangers are a small band of seracs (ice towers) you cross beneath on the North Col Headwall, and then the minimal danger of being hit by falling rock (or perhaps an abandoned oxygen bottle) on the upper, rocky ridges and faces. But, the summit day on the Northeast Ridge is quite involved. It is nearly all rock, and not good rock for climbing – it tends to be crumbly shale and fractured limestone, all tilted downhill at impossible angles. It feels as if you are walking on a giant, ceramic-tiled roof that runs for 10,000 feet. Once you ascend through the steep terrain of the Yellow Band and gain the Northeast Ridge crest, you encounter the major obstacles of the climb: the First Step, the traverse to Mushroom Rock and on to the Second Step, and then the Second Step itself. In a nutshell, the Northeast Ridge forces you to keep your focus, to always pay attention to the route ahead and behind as well as to ascend moderately technical terrain at extreme altitude. And, the most difficult part is that you cannot get down quickly, for the route is nearly all rock, and descent is an arduous process. Nevertheless, it’s fun climbing, and there’s no objective hazard, so the Northeast Ridge is my route of choice.
On an interesting side note, it was really a matter of politics that forced the pioneers in the 1920’s and ‘30’s to climb from the North via Tibet. At that time, Nepal was ruled by the xenophobic and autocratic Rana regime, and the country was all but sealed off to foreigners. So, the pioneers gained permission from the 13th Dalai Lama to approach the mountain via Tibet. In 1949-1950, the Chinese invaded and occupied Tibet. China subsequently sealed it off to foreigners while a revolution in Nepal overthrew the Ranas and brought King Tribhuvan Bir Bikram Shah Dev back to power. This opened Nepal’s doors to foreign travel, Along with it the first attempts to climb on the south side of Everest.
4) We came across each other’s path on one of my posts at Blogcritics that questioned if people climb mountains for the right reasons and if there is an overall benefit to mankind. It sparked some interesting comments. Would you care to rehash your thoughts here?
Sure. Basically, the debate was whether or not climbing, in light of recent tragedies in the mountains and ethical debates about David Sharp’s death, serves any purpose to mankind or the world as a whole.
To me, climbing can serve a purpose for humanity, for it has the potential to show people what one can accomplish, what barriers – self imposed or otherwise – one can overcome. In essence, climbing is about pushing our limits as humans, about looking up at a seemingly insurmountable goal and having the confidence to push toward that goal while maintaining the decision making power, ration, and instinct to decide when to turn around. As I wrote in my Blogcritics comment:
“So, to come back around, I think climbing mountains – Hood, Monadnock, or Everest – should be about striving to see what we can accomplish in our lives. It is, really, a metaphor for life itself. Climbing (and similar sports) teach us that many things which seem impossible are actually possible given the right combination of skill, insight, tenacity, & instinct. As James Ramsey Ullman so eloquently put it: “In its truest and most profound sense, the mountain life is an escape not from, but to, reality.“
Sadly, however, climbing has recently made somewhat of a transition, especially on Everest. Many people who go to Everest these days do so, to me, for the wrong reasons. They are not there to push themselves to their limits, to discover the fine balance between pushing to the limits and ensuring a safe return. Rather, many people come to Everest today for one reason only: to stand on top. And this is not only unfortunate, but dangerous as well. It is unfortunate because these climbers miss the beauty of the challenge, the inner growth which stems from deliberately pushing our mental and physical limits. In the words of one of my favorite authors, Robert Pirsig: “To live only for some future goal is shallow…It’s the side of the mountain that sustain life, not the top. Here’s where things grow.”
This trend in Everest climbing is dangerous because when one is focused solely on the top, living only for some future goal, that person is more apt to sacrifice their humanity in an effort to reach that goal. I cannot say what happened in the David Sharp incident last May – I was not there, and thus have only a bystanders opinion with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. (I know many people who were on the ridge that day, and know they are good people and did what they thought was best in the situation.) But, I do know that, when faced with the option of helping a dying man versus reaching that little patch of snow on top of the world, I would always choose the former…and have on Everest expeditions in the past.
5) What do you do to relax? Skydive?
Hehehe…What do I do to relax? Well, I honestly don’t do that too much – I like to be active, be it cerebrally or physically. And, my businesses take up a lot of my time when I’m not out climbing. But, strange as it may sound, I find climbing – ice, rock, or mountain – to be incredibly relaxing. For me, climbing forces all the superfluous things in life out of my head, and I become completely focused on the bare essentials: move that hand, don’t fall, breath, step up, etc. By breaking down life to its most basic components, I find I return from a climbing outing focused, happy, and more at peace. So, I guess that’s my relaxation!
Bonus: What advice would you give those who are thinking about climbing. What should they consider before undertaking such a journey?
Good question. Let me start by saying that this is my true opinion, and not said because part of my profession is being a mountain guide. I truly believe that the best way to start climbing is with a guide, and preferably with a good guide service – not the cheapest one. Remember the adage of you get what you pay for. This holds true in the mountains, with pretty serious consequences. A good guide will take you into the hills and get you acquainted with climbing in a safe and fun manner, and you’ll be amazed by the things you’ll accomplish after a day or two of instruction.
Once the initial learning phase is done, lots of people want to go out on their own and start climbing. That is fine, but people need to be sure they have mastered the basics of climbing first – anchors, route finding, safety, etc. The joy of climbing comes in part from living to climb another day, not dying in the process.
So, in a nutshell, I would suggest to those interested in climbing to start with a guide, learn the essentials and make sure they are second nature (there’s nothing more terrifying than needing to build an anchor to save your life and not remembering exactly how to do it) and then go to the hills but climb well within your ability until you’re sure you can push the proverbial envelope safely! Never forget the priorities: safety, fun, summit – in that order!
-I saw a Tic Tac commercial tonight and wondered who the hell buys Tic Tacs? Someone does or else they wouldn’t have the money for advertising. Still.
-Who was that guy from Home Depot with the pencil in his ear and sweatshirt coaching the New England Patriots? I think he even threw a Stanley measuring tape at one of the officials.
-Could Peyton Manning react any less excited after winning the AFC Championship? Maybe he was just plump stunned.
-I don’t get Madonna. First, she makes a killing selling sex and making herself look like a cheap tramp – hey all the power to her I guess. Second, we are fed all sorts of laughable crud about her spiritual and mature side. Here’s the thing the you need to consider the next time you see her sitting on Oprah’s couch while she yaps about how her children don’t watch television: she willingly contributed to the excesses we see in pop culture today. Her place in culture is secure. Anyone remember that stupid book Erotica and that horrible cover of American Pie? Good for her if she found a new path. Just don’t insult my intelligence. I think Oprah’s couch needs to be upholstered. I call it the Triumph of Sex over good taste. Others call it progress.
This is just what I observe.
On the heels of my somewhat tongue in cheek blasting of his sons I figured why not write about the patriarch Pierre Elliott Trudeau himself.
Before I go on let me be clear that his engaging of intellectual fornication with communist bums did little to excite this putrid little mind. Just wanted to get that off my puny shoulders.
Whatever you may think of his policies and how he handled the country – and there are many who vehemently disagreed – the one thing I appreciated about him was that he led. He was a thinking man’s leader. I did not agree with everything he did but Trudeau had a vision and had the courage to attempt to see it through.
Trudeau meant more than just being a Prime Minister. He glamorized it. He was aloof. He pirouetted behind Royalty. He suspended civil liberties. He canoed. He tried to get Canada out of its parochial mindset. He was a hopeless idealist tempered with forceful realism.
To me Trudeau was not about the policies per se (although some of these have done damage to the country) but the idea of a determined leader.
For that he deserves our respect.
On the heels of Condaleeza Rice’s important visit to eight Arab countries, something became apparent. It is evident that Arab’s want Iraq to succeed. They want assurances that Americans will not leave and allow Iraq to dissolve to the point of anarchy – Hillary Clinton’s recently unveiled her plan to slowly withdraw troops notwithstanding.
Ironically, for a country that has been accused of succumbing to the Jewish lobby, America is now seen as a potential protector of Sunni Arabs as Iran continues to forge through with its plans to build nuclear weaponry. As if that wasn’t enough, Israeli PM Olmert has gone on record urging the Americans to stop instilling fear regarding Iran.
One question: The United States visited countries like Egypt, Qatar and Kuwait while they continue to indirectly speak to Syrians and Iranians either through intermediaries or on television broadcasts. When will they directly engage Iran and Syria? Two culprits who have done little to help Iraq and seem content to lay the seeds of social and political discord in the country.
The Commentator 
