Take that, Iggy!

[Al Czervic]

Harper talks hockey! Something I don’t think we will ever hear Iggy do.

TORONTO - If Canada makes it to the gold-medal game at this month's Vancouver Olympics it's doubtful it would be more historically significant than the 1972 Summit Series, says Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

An avid hockey historian, Harper knows his stuff. He displayed the depth of his knowledge in an interview with Sports Illustrated, holding court in detail on both the history of the game and its role in shaping Canadian society.

Harper went so far as to liken Canada's experience in the seminal 1972 hockey battles against Russia to the Allied experience in the early part of the Second World War.

"The national psyche was at stake here, I think, in a much different way than the gold medal game," Harper said in an interview on the magazine's website SI.com. "The Canada-Soviet series had an overarching reality of Cold War confrontation as well, which really nothing today can replicate."

Nevertheless, if Canada makes it to the Olympic finals in Vancouver, it would still be one of the two or three most important games on Canadian ice, he predicted.

There is a danger that hockey will dominate the Olympics, something that would be unfortunate, Harper said.

"Canada has really grown and grown as an Olympic power. The Olympics is about more than hockey."

Harper is writing a book on hockey history and is a member of the Society for International Hockey Research.

He added the tough, aggressive, fast-paced aspects of hockey are as much a part of the Canadian character as being "peace-loving and fair-minded and pleasant."

There are parallels between Canada's love for hockey and the U.S. love for baseball, Harper said, but Canadians' love of hockey is more intense because baseball competes with football and basketball for Americans' attention.

"Although there are important sports in Canada - our own football, lacrosse - nothing does compete with hockey. It's on a different plane."

Harper also conceded that the chance to live out his boyhood fantasy of playing in the National Hockey League would outweigh the prestige of being prime minister.

"It's probably terrible to say, but any Canadian boy, if he could play in the NHL, would play in the NHL."

[Al Czervic]

Well I’ll be damned. Iggy writes a piece for the NY Times and he actually mentioned the word “hockey” once! You have to read way down to the bottom of Iggy’s article but it is there all right.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/magazine/07FOB-wwln-t.html

[c2c]

Yes, Canadians can be proud! Our PM is a ‘hockey expert’. Woo Hoo!

He is also a ‘trained economist’, dised by The Economist!

[Rwede]

Good to see that Iggy is keeping his job in "his nation", the United States, by continuing to write for the NY Times. Don't get too comfortable in Canada Iggy, because we all know you're "just visiting."

[rookie314]

Yes, Canadians can be proud! Our PM is a ‘hockey expert’. Woo Hoo!

Good for Harper. Whats wrong with being and expert in what the heartbeat of the country is? Oh I know, the average Canadian doesn't belong to a special interest group.

[c2c]

Nothing wrong with hockey expert. But in terms of relevance about Steven Harper, the Prime Minister, I think that the Economist article trumps:

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displa ... d=15213212

[steven lloyd]

Nothing wrong with hockey expert. But in terms of relevance about Steven Harper, the Prime Minister, I think that the Economist article trumps:

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displa ... d=15213212

Interesting article, and some very interesting comments that followed it. I don’t really personally see this prorogued parliament as a huge deal but there are some valid points to be made – including the mass of work that had still been in front of parliament as opposed to previous governments that prorogued parliament that had essentially completed the work in front of them before taking that step. There is little doubt it was a political move on Harper’s part, and probably a bit slimy (and even part of a bigger just as slimy picture), but so what? We should be getting used to stuff like this by now from all our politicians. In BC we’ve nurtured slime to reach new levels that were before only feared ("it will never get that bad that we actually elect suspected criminals to power") and are now dealt with through denial and rationalization.

Still, what choice do we have in Canadian politics? Layton? May? That Iggyotic guy? God forbid. Systemic electorate apathy has brought us to the place where we are left with choosing between the lesser of a number of bad choices – none of whom are really prepared to act on behalf of the common good of all our people. Hip hip hooray!