Politicians Exploiting Athletes

Watching the Winter Olympics and the aftermath, two things have struck me.

First, since when did “Canada wins X medals”? Canada doesn’t win medals — Canadian athletes win medals. 

Aside from the sloppy grammar, it’s men and women who have devoted years of hard work and sacrifice who achieve success in their chosen sport. They happen to be citizens of the same country as me, and undoubtedly that has been beneficial and contributed in some small way to their success. They’ve likely received some level of taxpayer support (and often complain it isn’t enough — probably with justification). But a lucky coincidence of birth hardly entitles any Canadian to claim a share of an athlete’s victory. If, as they skate around the oval draped in the flag, we feel a connection or a sense of pride, that’s fine. It’s also, let’s admit, opportunistic on our part and largely unearned — not much different from feeling like a “winner” because the thoroughbred you bet on at the racetrack came in first.

Second, don’t athletes realize when they are being used by politicians? And if they do, don’t they care? This thought was prompted by the strange spectacle of the head of the FBI celebrating with the US men's hockey team in their dressing room after their overtime gold medal, followed by 20 out of 25  players attending trump’s snorer of a State of the Union address.

Once again, the gold-medal-winning US women's hockey team — who declined trump’s invitation — appeared to be the more sensible group. They appeared to understand that allowing themselves to be politically exploited could tarnish their achievement.

It’s interesting to consider what the women grasped that the men did not. In terms of the competition itself, the women’s gold feels earned in a way the men’s does not. The US women’s team was widely regarded as the best in the world and performed accordingly. The men’s team, by contrast, was significantly outplayed in the final and prevailed largely due to heroic goaltending and a bit of luck— not uncommon in high-level sport. You might expect such a victory to inspire humility. Instead, the opposite seemed true.

There are other differences as well. The men are highly paid professionals; the women are closer to true amateurs. Because they play largely for the love of the game, the women may have a clearer sense of what competing represents — not just personally, but for women’s hockey and for their role as public figures. 

For the men, the gold medal can appear more like another triumph to celebrate, another credential to display, and any association with powerful political figures simply part of the package. 

Perhaps the only honest stance, as fans, is to admire the display of athletic prowess and talent, without trying to own any part of it. To cheer without pretending we had anything to do with it, and be happy for the players without layering on any meaning or importance that isn't there. 

Ode To The PBT on ABC

Sometimes I get as nostalgic for more innocent times as the next guy. That’s what happened this past weekend, when I was feeling the midwinter blues and the YouTube algorithm—my digital security blanket—anticipated the remedy, as it so often does.

What popped up? A 1981 ABC broadcast of the Pro Bowlers Tour (PBT). It was the semifinals of the Rolaids Open—another matchup between the legendary Earl Anthony and his explosive rival Mark Roth.

It’s hard to overestimate the popularity of bowling when I was a kid. The “Golden Age” reached its peak in the 1960s, fueled by the invention of automatic pinsetters and the rise of televised professional tournaments.

Bowling culture was still going strong in the mid-’70s when I was a teenager. At its height, there were approximately 12,000 bowling centers in the U.S., and the American Bowling Congress boasted millions of dues-paying members. League participation hit its numerical peak in the 1978–79 season, with 9.8 million certified members.

It was a relatively affordable pastime. Weekly bowling leagues were a popular social activity—one of those bygone institutions that helped form the fabric of community cohesion across North America. Every household seemed to have a bowling ball. I can still picture the pink one my mother kept in her closet. I used to take it out just to look at it with fascination, feel its heaviness, stare at its magical swirling texture, as if it might tell me my fortune.

Then there were the tournament sponsors. They weren’t the multibillion-dollar white-collar multinationals that sponsor golf tournaments—companies like Royal Bank or Farmers Insurance. The PBT had mostly consumer-product sponsors: Rolaids, Wonder Bread, True Value Hardware, AMF (American Metal and Foundry), and the Miller Brewing Company. The sponsors themselves were a portrait of middle America.

And the tournament locations were places like Akron Ohio, Decatur Illinois, Rochester New York, and Florissant, Missouri.

How popular were PBT broadcasts, hosted by the inimitable Chris Schenkel on ABC? They were regularly watched by millions. In the mid-1970s, bowling telecasts held a 9.0 Nielsen rating—meaning roughly 9% of all U.S. households with a television were tuned in. On February 16, 1980, a record 22.7 million viewers watched the AMF MagicScore Open. During this era, bowling telecasts frequently outdrew major sporting events like the NCAA basketball semifinals and rounds of The Masters.

It must be said that bowling was largely a white man’s sport. I can’t recall a single Black pro on television at the time. Like many American sports associations, bowling has a regrettable history of racial and gender exclusion.

But back to Anthony versus Roth.

This wasn’t just a rivalry between the two best bowlers of their era—it was a clash of styles. Two men trying to achieve the exact same thing—knocking down ten pins—with completely opposite approaches.

Anthony was Mr. Smooth, the epitome of grace. Always well groomed and neat in appearance, in his glasses he looked more like an accountant than an athlete. His approach was economical, the ball light in his hands, his timing quick. From the moment he set his grip to the start of his delivery was mere seconds—barely any hesitation. His backswing was compact, and he launched the ball seemingly without effort. There was hardly any visible spin, but exactly the right amount.

Roth was completely different—the bull to Anthony’s matador. Slightly disheveled, physically more compact, and explosive in motion, he appeared to deliver the ball with every ounce of energy he possessed. His backswing soared high above his head, and the ball careened down the lane spinning like a centrifuge, teetering on the edge of the gutter before cutting violently into the pocket at the last instant with phenomenal force.

Watching it now, decades later, what struck me most was not just the skill, or even the nostalgia, but the unhurried intimacy of it all—the enthusiastic crowd, the absence of flashy graphics, the sense that this was a sport made for ordinary people with ordinary lives. Anthony and Roth seemed less like distant superstars than like two men you might recognize from your local grocery store. 

In a winter that can feel long and airless, the broadcast was a small time machine to an era when competition felt personal, communities felt tangible, and even a simple game could command the nation’s attention for an afternoon. For a couple of hours, at least, the world seemed narrower, calmer, and somehow kinder.

As I usually do when gripped by nostalgia I looked up what happened to Anthony and Roth. Roth, who is still the only right-handed bowler to ever convert a 7-10 split on national television, continued winning tournaments into the early 2000s. He died in 2021 at the age of 70 of pneumonia.

Earl Anthony's fate was not so blithe. In a sad bit of irony, the epitome of quiet grace on the lanes died tragically in 2001 from a head injury sustained when he fell down a flight of stairs at a friend's house. He was just 63 years old.    

God or the Blues

CLICK HERE TO HEAR THE SONG

Mama read the Good Book

Papa paid his dues

Preacher preached Word

Sister swore it true

Me I always wondered

What I was gonna do

You know in this life 

You know you gotta choose 

Either god or the blues

Either god or the blues

Mama did her housework

Papa shined his shoes 

Preacher was the shepherd

Sister was his crew

Me I always wondered

What I was gonna do

You know in this life 

You know you gotta choose 

Either god or the blues

Either god or the blues

Mama praised the Church 

Papa cursed the Jews 

Preacher’s faith was stirred

Sister felt it too

Me I always wondered

What I was gonna do

You know in this life 

You know you gotta choose 

Either god or the blues

Either god or the blues

Mama gave a look

Papa drank his booze

Preacher said he'd heard

Sister spread the news

Me I always wondered

What I was gonna do

You know in this life 

You know you gotta choose 

Either god or the blues

Either god or the blues

Shaking The Tree

We need to talk about this again.

Had a spirited discussion with a couple of work associates yesterday about politics, as usual.

I can usually keep my cool, even when there is disagreement. I'm a strong believer in engaging in respectful political discourse with people you disagree with. In fact, it's essential. There's far too much exchanging of ideas only with people you already agree with. You don't learn anything new from an echo chamber.

But I do draw the line when I hear a certain phrase — one I hear far too often: “I hate trump, but I like that he's doing… (fill in the blank).” And often the blank is filled with something like “He’s shaking the tree.”

First, to say you “hate trump” before praising him is, at the very least, niggling — a cop-out — and at worst disingenuous. It reassures the listener: I’m actually on your side. I know, like everybody knows, that he’s a terrible person. I’m a good person, not really one of his supporters. In my mind, qualifying your opinion this way gives you permission to support him while avoiding responsibility for that support. It is, in some ways, worse than simply backing him openly.

Second, the premise itself is false. It treats trump as if he were a conventional politician making policy decisions in the national interest. He isn’t. He operates less as a policymaker than as a performer of power, guided by self-interest and self-preservation. To say “I like what he’s doing” implies that he is acting on your behalf. He isn’t. Even if an action happens to benefit you, that benefit is incidental. Saying you like it because it helped you is like praising a forest fire because, by sheer luck, it didn’t burn your house down.

For instance, it looks increasingly like trump may strike Iran again. Some of my Israeli friends are pleased by this prospect. But if such a decision is made, it would not be because he was thinking about Israel’s security. It's because it serves his personal domestic political needs — projecting strength, shifting attention away from Epstein etc. The external effect may align with certain interests, but that does not mean those interests drove the decision.

Third, no, he isn’t “shaking the tree” — he’s breaking it. Do I think the world has become far too dependent on the United States over the past 70 years, and that countries like Canada should invest more in their own defense? Yes. But that is a reformist argument, not a demolition plan. What is being upended now is not merely policy but the underlying structure of the postwar international system: a network of alliances and institutions built around shared liberal values and rules rather than raw power.

In our discussion, my colleagues argued that the United Nations should be abolished, claiming it has become corrupt to the core. Frankly, they have little idea what the UN actually does or how many agencies operate under its umbrella. It is unquestionably flawed and in need of reform, and some bodies — such as UNRWA — are obsolete. But the larger claim is simply untenable. No organization in history has done more to benefit humanity than the UN, from coordinating humanitarian relief, saving lives through disease control programs, facilitating economic development, and mediating conflict on a global scale.

What my colleagues were really expressing, understandably, was frustration. 

A values-based international system gives even the weakest nations a seat at the table, including countries whose political systems, cultures, or human-rights records differ sharply from our own. Yes, it is troubling that states like China or Pakistan sit on bodies such as the United Nations Human Rights Council. Yet their presence also subjects them to scrutiny under internationally recognized standards. The system’s inclusiveness is both its weakness and its strength.

In the end, the “I hate him, but…” argument reveals less about trump than about our collective impatience with imperfect systems. Disorder can feel satisfying when order seems slow, hypocritical, or ineffective. But history suggests that once the guardrails are removed, rebuilding them is far harder than tearing them down. 

Tumbler Ridge

There’s an old adage that we see a person’s true colours when times are most difficult.

If that’s the case, the unimaginable tragedy that happened this week in the idyllic hamlet of Tumbler Ridge says we can be extremely proud to be Canadian.

The coverage has been wall to wall on CBC. I must say that makes me somewhat uncomfortable at times. Microphones and cameras shoved into the faces of community members who are only just beginning to process their enormous trauma are hard to watch. At moments it feels exploitative. You want to give people in shock some space. Some decency. Some time.

Yet undeniably this is a story of national concern. And it’s heartening that our political leaders have set exactly the right tone.

Across party lines they have come together to emphasize unity and support. Their speeches on the floor of the House of Commons were heartfelt and moving. Together they drove home the message that this is not a time for politics. It is a time for caring and grieving.

It is also heartening that our national media has honoured the victims — two adults and six innocent twelve-year-olds. We have been told who they were, about their interests and passions, about their promise and their stolen futures. The effect has been to magnify the loss for the entire country.

There seems to be a quiet acknowledgment that this tragedy belongs to all of us. Yes, there was a perpetrator. But not a word of blame has yet dominated the public conversation. From the coverage, the people most directly affected — members of the Tumbler Ridge community who knew the shooter and her family — appear as saddened for them as for the victims.

I don’t follow social media. I’m sure some of what is being posted is regrettable. I’m glad I don’t have to see it. But overwhelmingly the public response thus far has been respectful, sympathetic and appropriately somber.

I can’t help thinking about how Americans and American politicians have handled similar tragedies in their own country.

Admittedly they have grown accustomed to such horrors with tragic regularity. Which may explain the typical response: media fascination with the perpetrator, the motive, the police response, the calibre of the weapon. The spectacle takes over. The victims recede.

And within a day, the familiar narratives begin — the rehearsed lines about guns and freedom, about mental health, about partisan blame. Whether the shooter was Republican or Democrat, Black or Hispanic, cisgender or trans — the tragedy is quickly absorbed into an existing script.

None of this has happened in Canada. Not yet, at least. We are not saints; some of that will come. But I doubt it will reach the fever pitch it so often does in the United States. More likely, the tone will remain earnest — a collective effort to understand, to mourn, and eventually consider appropriate steps to prevent such things from ever happening again.

Leaders from around the world sent condolences when they heard about Tumbler Ridge. Many of those messages came from our neighbours to the south.

Just not from their president.

The old adage that we see a person’s true colours when times are most difficult — it seems — is certainly true.

The Epstein Rosetta Stone Redux

By calling the files a kind of Rosetta Stone, I don’t mean they allow us to decode every relationship or act contained within them. They don’t. But they do reveal a pattern.

A better metaphor may be an MRI. An MRI does not tell a story; it renders structure. It exposes connective tissue—nerves, vessels, hidden systems beneath the skin. It requires interpretation, but it shows what is there. The Epstein files function similarly. They expose the underlying networks of a transnational elite: the social, financial, and political circuitry through which influence flows.

Much remains sealed, and that concealment is itself informative. Even so, what is visible suggests a class bound less by nationality than by wealth and access. Their loyalties are horizontal, not civic. They protect one another because their interests align.

Those interests are straightforward: expand wealth, shield assets, minimize constraint. Public institutions—tax authorities, regulators, prosecutors—are obstacles to be navigated or neutralized. Capital, deployed strategically, purchases discretion, delay, and sometimes effective immunity. Within these circles, information about tax avoidance and asset protection travels as easily as gossip.

If impunity is central to maintaining position, then systems that weaken accountability become attractive. Constitutional democracy, with its equal application of law, is friction. Personalized power structures are more efficient. The rule of law is admirable in theory; in practice, it is inconvenient.

They live in a different ecosystem and intend to preserve it. Extreme wealth breeds insulation; insulation breeds entitlement; entitlement hardens into contempt. [If you wanted to see a public demonstration of that contempt, all you had to do was watch five minutes of Attorney General (or should I say trump's mouthpiece) Pam Bondi's disgraceful 'testimony' before the House Oversight Committee yesterday.]

Sex in this environment is not an aberration but an instrument. It is transactional, traded like stocks and bonds - rich men comparing their 'girls' as they would their investment portfolios.

Why is the Epstein scandal proving to be so politically potent?

It is not primarily moral outrage. Public standards of sexual conduct no longer determine political survival. Nor is the sustained political energy driven solely by concern for victims—who must continually insist they not be forgotten, as we saw at the Bondi hearing.

What resonates is impunity. “Pedophile ring” operates as shorthand for something larger: a closed network of privilege operating beyond consequence. The sexual crimes are monstrous. But politically, they symbolize asymmetry—rules that bind downward and dissolve upward.

The scandal strikes a nerve because it makes visible the humiliation embedded in inequality. The wealthy can dangle access, opportunity, and money before the less powerful, then retreat behind lawyers and influence. For those outside that world, the files do not merely describe exploitation; they confirm suspicion. The system is not neutral. It protects its own.

And yet there is a limit to what these files can show. An MRI reveals structure, not cure. Exposure is not reform. Networks adapt; elites recalibrate; outrage dissipates. Without institutional will, transparency hardens into spectacle and then into memory. The real question is not what the files reveal, but whether societies possess the capacity—or the appetite—to translate revelation into constraint.

What I Will Accomplish Today

CLICK HERE TO HEAR AUTHOR READ

It’s not wake up, brush my teeth,

look in the mirror and pinch my fat.

It’s not check the weather on my cel.

It’s not get dressed, take a statin pill

and an adult multivitamin.

It’s not make a tuna fish sandwich

with extra mayonnaise, packed with a V8

and three chocolate cookies for lunch.

It’s not take out the garbage

and drive ten kilometers in heavy traffic to work.

It’s not switch the radio station five times.

It’s not stop for gas.

It’s not make a pot of coffee,

pour a cup, one sugar.

It’s not text the plumber

that I have the cash I owe him.

It’s not answer emails,

and make a deal on the phone.

It’s not make a buck

to put some away for retirement.

It’s not check my news feed

and wonder if any of it is believable.

It’s not get angry

at the corruption, scandal, inhumanity.

It’s not drink a second cup of coffee, one sugar.

It’s not eat my tuna fish sandwich

and wonder if I’m getting enough protein.

It’s not finish the quarterly sales report,

a week past deadline.

It’s not avoid the boss.

It’s not check my news feed again,

and rage, again.

It’s not fantasize about having sex

with a cute coworker.

It’s not think about visiting

my sick brother this weekend.

It’s not sit in a management meeting

and take a few notes.

It’s not pay my daughter’s school tuition online.

It’s not wonder if I’m wasting my life.

It’s not slip out of work early.

What I will accomplish today

is write a poem.