option+

I don't want to talk about Latendresse. I thought that was a fantastic win considering we played the whole game without Higgins, for a 5 minute stretch without Komisarek and a 10 minute stretch without Souray. I know the refs were excessively harsh to give Souray a 10 and let Greene get away without a major for kneeing Johnson, but let's not forget that we had 9 PPs and the Oilers only had 4. Yellowknife is full of Oilers fans, and I've already gotten 4 "stupid Habs get all the calls!" e-mails. The Souray/Greene calls aside, the refs probably went easy on us tonight (I bet Craig MacTavish wished he hadn't said anything about the officiating, huh?).

DAMMIT! Sykora.

I'm not sure I can answer whether or not le CH is "for real" just yet... but I will say that the fact that we're 7-3-3 having played almost the entire season without 2 Top 6 blueliners is a good sign. We'll see how we do without Higgins. If the team collapses without him then I'm afraid they're simply not as good as I thought they were. I know he's an important cog but good teams find a way to stay afloat without key players. One thing that I like: there are a lot less dubious efforts than at this time last year. With the exception of a few games (@ Chicago, at home to Buffalo, the first two periods recently vs. Toronto), this team is coming to play every night.

By "on Saddam's case", I meant that Amnesty does what they usually do: they issues a press release condemning Saddam's gassing of the Kurds, they began a letter writing campaign to the US and British governments to try and convince them to ditch Saddam as an ally, etc. So in other words, they did much more for the victims of Saddam's atrocities in the 1980s then they are currently doing for Saddam. A clear definition of human rights has never existed? Well, we do have the UN Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenants on Civic, Political, Economics, Social and Cultural rights, we have the Geneva Conventions, and other conventions against torture, racial discrimination, and on the rights of children. There is an entire branch of the UN (under the leadership of the UNHCR) devoted to monitoring human rights. While none of those conventions are perfect, I think it's pretty safe to say that what human rights have been well defined under international law. The problem with human rights is not that they're not well defined; it's that governments decide to ignore them. "Sometimes wrong is wrong"; how you think is your business, but I choose not to look at things in such a black and white way. If wrong truly is wrong, then it will be proven to be wrong in a fair trial, right? By all accounts, the evidence against Saddam was so overwhelming that he would have been found guilty in any courtroom in the world. So then why plough through an unfair trial in record speed? There must be another (political) reason for that, one that surely has nothing to do with victims families and their sufferings. I realize that I'm a complete idealist, and I know that pisses off a lot of people (in general)... but there is also a practical basis to my idealism. I tend to think that justice feels most satisfying when it has been administered properly, according to international norms. Perhaps not on a personal level, but certainly on an institutional level. What would have happened if after World War II, the Americans, Brits, French and Soviets had just shot all the Nazis they could find in the name of "justice" (which Stalin wanted to do, by the way). Well, I think that shooting people in the head after a war finished would have become normal, that going on orgies of revenge killings after conflicts would have become legitimate ways of behaving. I realize that this is what happens more often than not after wars, but there are also many instances where mass murderers have been accorded fair trials under international law, found guilty, then punished accordingly. I don't like Saddam Hussein. But I also don't like the precedent his "trial" creates.

I'm pumped to see how Carle develops. I know that it's assumed in some circles that defencemen in the Q aren't very good because (popular assumption again) nobody bothers to play D in the Q. But guys like Vlasic in San Jose and Letang in Pittsburgh went straight from the Q to an NHL roster as teenagers, even though Letang was sent back down. And none of those guys were first rounders either, they were far from being hyped prospects... given their success, we may be seeing Carle up with the big club sooner rather than later.

The Epps RUN Waterloo! Don't mess with them! It's unbelievable how often that happens in US elections. Perhaps we should send some international election observers that way.

The line is here: either everyone's human rights are protected, or the concept of human rights becomes meaningless. If we use moralistic reasoning to decide who gets to keep their human rights... then where does the line get drawn there? OK, mass murderers shouldn't have human rights. How about rapists? Armed robbers? Enron-style corporate criminals? Gang members? A guy who stole a cabbage from a market? OR maybe they should have varying amounts of human rights. Mass murderers would have none, rapists a few more, armed robbers still more, etc. I would find such a system much more troublesome than one where everyone's human rights are protected full stop. I know for a FACT that Amnesty International was on Saddam's case during the 80s for gasing the Kurds and various other human rights abuses, and I'm sure various other human rights watchdogs did the same. So in response to your question "who protected and and preserved their 'human rights'", the answer is lots of people. Or at least they tried. Unfortunately, such organizations are usually powerless. Their criticism of the Sadaam trial will in the long run mean nothing; if the Iraqi and American governments want to hang him, then he will be hung. And in the 1980s, their protests were likewise meaningless; the United States and Britain were too busy using Iraq as a proxy in a war against Iran to give a damn about what Sadaam Hussein was doing inside his own country.

Kostitsyn has better bloody play. That's a lot of offense we're losing... Lapierre or Downey or whoever else might be taking his place isn't going to provide any O. This is an absolute catastrophe.

Saddam is obviously an awful person who used poison gas on other human beings (among other war crimes), but that trial was definitely not fair. Many Iraqi politicians were calling from the start for a swift trial and execution... and how many times was this trial been speeded up? The first judge was taken off the case for not going fast enough... the proposed second judge was barred from taking the trial because of a rumour that he was a Baathist 30 years ago or something. Basically, the Iraqi government went through a series of judges until they found one that they liked... the prosecutors were allowed to present evidence and call witnesses without notifying the defence... Saddam's lawyers were not given proper protection by Iraqi authorities, leading to his main defence lawyer being assassinated in Baghdad earlier this year. I haven't even mentioned the fact that he was tried by an Iraqi court for war crimes...he should have been tried by some sort of international tribunal, like the Nazis at Nuremberg, Slobodan Milosevic, or the Rwandan Hutus and NOT by a domestic court. I don't want to use the term "kangaroo court" because the verdict reached was probably the correct one. But make no mistake, this trial was nowhere approaching international standards of justice. It was a perfect example of victor's justice. I'm not saying that the verdict wasn't proper or that Saddam didn't deserve it, but the trial itself wasn't even close to fair. You seem to be of the opinion that Saddam Hussein didn't deserve a fair trail because of the crimes he committed. That's fine, it's tough to argue with that. But I will stick up for Amnesty International... their job isn't to determine who is guilty and who isn't, that is the job of a court of law; it's to try and insure that people's human rights are respected. I'm sure there are many people at Amnesty who felt sick to their stomach criticizing this trial... but human rights are universal. If you ever wind up unwittingly in a Malaysian jail or something, you'll be quite happy that there are groups like Amnesty who do what they do.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/article.jsp...106_134317_4492

ESPN did a documentary-style thing about the Avalanche a few years ago, the year that they picked up Matthew Barnaby at the deadline. They had a mic on him for a game against Detroit. I'm sure they only showed the tip of the iceberg when it comes to profanity, but it was fun to hear him and Chelios jawing at each other.

I love the contrast between Stevens and Trottier. Stevens seems pissed off to the point of being homicidal. He can barely get the words out, it took him like three tries to come up with "you lay on the ice like a broad". Trottier meanwhile, is the peanut gallery. He's content to throw around multiple insults in that high pitched voice of his. He seems like he's having a lot more fun with the situation than Stevens, who seems genuinely pissed. I honestly think there should be a channel devoted to stuff like this. I personally find it quite interesting to find out what professional athletes say to each other.

Mick McGeough, the worst referee in the NHL, struck again.

I'm not sure Julien will have a choice in the matter. Final score: Habs 65, Devils 0.

Brett Hull could have played for Canada if he wanted, he just chose not to out of loyalty to USA Hockey. Lots of guys have played for two different countries internationally. Petr Nedved comes to mind, as does Peter Stastny, who actually switched allegiances twice - Czechoslovakia to Canada to Slovakia.

One of my friends is a Canucks fan, so I kind of follow them just so I can talk about them to him. Why fire Nonis? Most of his moves in the off season have seemed to have paid off. -The Luongo/Krajicek for Bertuzzi/Allen/Auld trade looks like a win for the Canucks, especially considering how well Krajicek has been playing. -Alain Vigneault was absolutely the right hire at the right time. -Considering how well the D has panned out, the decision not to overpay Jovanovski looks OK. -Not overpaying Carter was definitely the right move, considering a) he sucks and B) you can put a law chair on a line with the Sedins (or in this case, Taylor Pyatt) and it would score 25 goals. -Signing Bulis wasn't necessary a bad move... though miscasting him as a Top 6 forward certainly has proven to be. The Marc Chouinard signing looks dubious at best. Not a lot to criticize Nonis about so far this year...

Yep. Sanderson was born in Hay River and grew up in Pine Point, a town that doesn't exist anymore.

Milan are obviously a great team, but if you honestly think that Milan were better than Lyon last year in the quarterfinals, then you are delusional. Lyon were five minutes away from advancing before Milan scored, on a shot that ricocheted off of both posts before Inzaghi swept it in. Milan got jobbed in the next round against Barça, but they were lucky to get that far to begin with...

We would DESTROY Yukon. Geoff Sanderson scoring goals, Jordin Tootoo laying people out, Rob McVicar in net. NWT/Nunavut 5, Yukon 0.

Milan lucked out against Lyon last year. This is the year that Lyon break through and make at least the semifinals. Are you a Lyon supporter ArtoVuoti? I definitely am... never get to see any games here, except for the rare one on TV5.

Guy Bertrand is a clown. the guy ran for the PQ leadership in 1980s, decided he was a federalist in the 1990s, then decided he was a separatist again six years later. He is a joke as a lawyer; remarks he made during a trial (where he was defending a Rwandan war criminal) may end up getting him disbarred. He has little credibility. He's just playing politics, anyway. If Quebec really wants a team in the 2008 World Championships, then they're barking up the wrong tree. Charest can't do anything - Bertrand may want to start lobbying people in the IIHF. Of course, that would require Bertrand to do something other than just run his mouth...

I was at that game... I'm not sure how long the clapping lasted, but it lasted long enough that the metal bands on my watch shattered from getting bounced around on my arm. Good times!

Here's a thought... how about Bonk for the Selke?

Paradiso is indeed an old church. The acoustics are just fine, no echoes or anything. Anyone else have favourite concert venues they'd like to share?

They won't finish #3 in the conference (a surge from New Jersey is inevitable), but I'm pretty sure they'll make the playoffs. They're going to keep scoring goals no matter what, the question is whether they'll prevent enough to make the playoffs. I'm going to say yes. Fleury finally looks like he's figured out the NHL (not coincidently, this is the first year the Penguins have given him a goalie coach). That D is kind of anonymous, but some of these no-name guys they have (Noah Welch, Josef Melichar, Mark Eaton) are actually pretty good. I'm firmly on the Pittsburgh bandwagon (except when they play the Habs, of course)