A few days ago, the Red Wings and Flyers played an exhibition game. The score was tied at the end of overtime, so it moved into a shootout. During the shootout, someone threw a banana peel on the ice. Anyone with even a slight awareness of hockey knows that things are thrown on the ice all of the time--octopi, hats, rubber rats, slabs of beef, etc. Now, other than the NHL powers-that-be, things thrown on the ice are pretty well tolerated by everyone--until the banana peel incident. And why was this different? The player on the ice at the time was the only black player for either team. And someone decided this was a racist incident--which it probably was. And the (hockey) world exploded for several days.
While I would never argue that racially motivated acts are okay, I do have some very serious concerns about this entire affair. First of all, this game was a pre-season game. That in itself meant that not a whole lot of people were watching it. There was no audio or video broadcast of this game--other than to an area in and around Philadelphia. So, the fans in the arena and the (relatively) small viewing audience were the only people who actually saw this happen. And I question how many people saw this, even if they were at the game--several players were questioned about this later and they weren't aware of what happened until they were told. But, someone DID see this and ran with the story. I don't know where it first appeared--Twitter, a news story, a blog--but someone made a story out of this. And once it was out there, it became fodder for opinion pieces, blogs, newscasts, Twitter, Facebook, etc, etc, etc. This was reported and talked about ad nauseum for several days.
As I said, I would never advocate for a racially motivated act. I also don't believe society is benefitted by sweeping unpleasant topics/acts under the rug, BUT... And there is the problem. The person responsible for this was never found, so we really don't know what his motivation for throwing the peel was. I'm NOT saying there wasn't a racial element to this, but I'm saying that the assclown who did this probably had a bigger reason for his actions: PUBLICITY.* And he got his share of publicity. This is pretty much the only thing that was 'talked' about for several days.
Now, we come to my question. Is this something that should have been ignored? This could have flamed out very quickly, because of the small amount of people who saw what happened. Actually, it would barely have been a spark if it hadn't been reported. Have we become a society so politically correct that we have to 'make a big deal' out of everything, even if the intention was nowhere close to what others perceived? We are finding in all areas of our lives where huge stories are (manufactured?) from small, insignificant incidents--from politics to our personal lives--and it doesn't seem to help do much more than inflame. I do have to wonder who is benefitting from this--other than the 24-hour news sources and the assclowns who want publicity.
*I realize that I am publicizing this just as much as everyone else did, but I don't reach a big audience, so I don't think my little blog matters. ;)
Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts
Monday, September 26, 2011
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Who Is The Better Fan?
I am very much a non-entity on the interwebs--and I believe I like it like that. It keeps me out of trouble and saves me from so many fights that I see going on. Already in this very early part of the season, I have seen at least two nasty fights going on--and I don't 'follow' hardly anyone on Twitter or read very many blogs! I can't even begin to imagine how many there have been that I know nothing about. And these are between fans of the SAME team, NOT opposing fans. I don't get it. And that is why I usually don't give my opinion, unless it is pretty much the same as the majority opinion. Yes, I'm spineless.
The majority of fights are usually one of two: 1) Someone rags on a particular player and another person comes to his defense or 2) someone criticizes the entire team a bit strenuously and a total homer (who wouldn't say a bad word about the team if s/he was paid) comes to the team's defense--and accuses the criticizer of being less than a loyal fan. And then the fighting begins. And, usually, a lot of other people are dragged into the fight and then all hell breaks out.
Many times I can see all sides of every fight--as a mother, I learned this lesson early on--and find it hard to come down on one side or the other. It is very easy and justifiable to find fault when a player is doing less than what he should be doing--yet, I can understand where there may be extenuating circumstances. I really wonder how each of us would be evaluated at our jobs if we were under the microscope of fans. I know that I don't do my best after The Husband and I have had an argument, or when I'm not feeling 'quite right.' I find myself being distracted if there are 'issues' in the lives of my kids or close friends. But, we don't want to give the players any consideration when they fall short of their best--we don't want to accept that they are mere humans like the rest of us. Of course, I also can see the side that feels that these guys are being paid big money to do their jobs and the hell with what else is going on in their lives. Both sides are valid, to an extent.
The other big argument that seems to crop up periodically is the one between the 'homer' and the fan without blinders. (I know that is being simplistic, but it gets my point across.) There does seem to be a group of people who feel if a person is a fan of a team, then there should be no criticism of the team whatsoever. While I don't agree with this way of thinking, I DO agree that some 'fans' take the criticizing a bit too far--and can't seem to find anything good to say, ever. And each type of fan seems to think the other isn't a 'true' fan. Ridiculous. I wish some people would find a happy medium and stay there.
When these fights start and go on, no one 'wins.' Hard feelings usually last for a long time after the fight cools down, and that is just sad. I realize that people are passionate, but sometimes things just go too far. Sometimes the two who began the fight agree to disagree and move on--but that is a rarity. Fighting about something that is JUST opinion is crazy. It is just as crazy as fighting about religion or politics--everyone has an opinion, every opinion is just as valid as the next, and fighting about it just causes hard feelings, without any resolution. In all my years, I can't really remember a time when someone has actually gotten me to change my mind about an opinion of mine, no matter how well their case was presented. And so, I will continue to be spineless and try to ignore the in-fighting that will continue throughout the year. And that makes me sad.
The majority of fights are usually one of two: 1) Someone rags on a particular player and another person comes to his defense or 2) someone criticizes the entire team a bit strenuously and a total homer (who wouldn't say a bad word about the team if s/he was paid) comes to the team's defense--and accuses the criticizer of being less than a loyal fan. And then the fighting begins. And, usually, a lot of other people are dragged into the fight and then all hell breaks out.
Many times I can see all sides of every fight--as a mother, I learned this lesson early on--and find it hard to come down on one side or the other. It is very easy and justifiable to find fault when a player is doing less than what he should be doing--yet, I can understand where there may be extenuating circumstances. I really wonder how each of us would be evaluated at our jobs if we were under the microscope of fans. I know that I don't do my best after The Husband and I have had an argument, or when I'm not feeling 'quite right.' I find myself being distracted if there are 'issues' in the lives of my kids or close friends. But, we don't want to give the players any consideration when they fall short of their best--we don't want to accept that they are mere humans like the rest of us. Of course, I also can see the side that feels that these guys are being paid big money to do their jobs and the hell with what else is going on in their lives. Both sides are valid, to an extent.
The other big argument that seems to crop up periodically is the one between the 'homer' and the fan without blinders. (I know that is being simplistic, but it gets my point across.) There does seem to be a group of people who feel if a person is a fan of a team, then there should be no criticism of the team whatsoever. While I don't agree with this way of thinking, I DO agree that some 'fans' take the criticizing a bit too far--and can't seem to find anything good to say, ever. And each type of fan seems to think the other isn't a 'true' fan. Ridiculous. I wish some people would find a happy medium and stay there.
When these fights start and go on, no one 'wins.' Hard feelings usually last for a long time after the fight cools down, and that is just sad. I realize that people are passionate, but sometimes things just go too far. Sometimes the two who began the fight agree to disagree and move on--but that is a rarity. Fighting about something that is JUST opinion is crazy. It is just as crazy as fighting about religion or politics--everyone has an opinion, every opinion is just as valid as the next, and fighting about it just causes hard feelings, without any resolution. In all my years, I can't really remember a time when someone has actually gotten me to change my mind about an opinion of mine, no matter how well their case was presented. And so, I will continue to be spineless and try to ignore the in-fighting that will continue throughout the year. And that makes me sad.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Prognosticating
Like the majority of hockey fans--at least those of us in the USA--I get most of my hockey news on the interwebs. Gone are the days when I was able to go to the nearest newsstand and buy at least TWO hockey publications per week. But at this time of year--as long as I'm somewhere that actually CARRIES hockey mags--I'm able to get a bunch of magazines that will preview the coming season. And I read every one of them--for better or for worse. This week, I'm reading The Hockey News yearbook.
It amuses me to read the lists of 'what team will end the season where'--especially the way these mags have been SO wrong in the past. Obviously, these lists are done 'by committee' and I'm sure personal opinions come into play when picks are made. After all, these ARE just human beings doing the lists, so personal favorites would HAVE to be part of the decision making process. And for the most part, that is why the different mags will come up with different results. And this year, The Hockey News has decided that the Vancouver Canucks will win the Stanley Cup. AND that Detroit will be third in the west. AND that Pittsburgh is quite strong--and will place second in the east. AND that Chicago might have lost a lot, but is still an elite team that will be in the mix for defending their title. Whatever. As I said, I read these mostly for amusement--and then I read them halfway through the season and again at the end of the season, just so I can laugh at how wrong the predictions were.
The one thing from all of these magazines that DOES bother me, however, are their 'Top {insert number here}' lists. The Hockey News has their Top 50 players and, of course, I take exception with the position of some of the players. As a Red Wing fan, I can't believe that Datsyuk is a #4. Or Lidstrom is #17. Or Zetterberg is #22. AND that they are the only Wings to make the list. But, I AM biased. ;)
Of course, #1 and #2 are Crosby and Ovechkin. Everyone can be grateful that I am not a GM, because I would never have either one of these guys on my team. I WILL admit that they are talented, but I couldn't be a GM because I look at players too emotionally and not as to how well they play. Crosby wouldn't be on my team because--well, he's CROSBY! We all know the reasons to hate him. And I really don't like Ovechkin. And the reason? I think Ovechkin is the complete stereotypical, over-the-top athlete that people point to when they say why they hate sports. While some people say he is good for the sport because he adds excitement--much like some feel about Sean Avery--I am very old-fashioned and enjoy the low-key, humble, typical hockey player. Something Ovechkin would NEVER be accused of being. But enough of this.
I know that The Hockey News got input from "GMs, pro scouts and analysts," but I still don't understand why some of these players made the list. I guess I don't know HOW they picked some of these players as the best "right here and right now" with comments about them such as this:
"his scoring totals and plus-minus took a serious dip last season"
"he can...be a disaster in his own end and his playoff performance has been seriously lacking"
"...reputation has taken a beating...largely due to his inability at key moments"
" the team "had to put out an APB on him during the playoffs...and he sometimes has tunnel vision when it comes to offensive play...has the skill to become an elite NHL goal-scorer" but "does he have the will to do it?"
"you just wish he'd get a little more...involved"
The Hockey News measured the "on-ice contributions" of the players in order to decide who made this list. "...future potential and, to a lesser extent, past performance" were factors in rating the "best players going into the 2010-11 season." If past performance isn't going to be the BIGGEST factor in deciding the best players, how did they factor in on-ice contributions? It just isn't computing for me. But again, these are JUST human beings making the list, so bias will DEFINITELY be present.
Of course, I have no suggestion as to how these lists SHOULD be made. You could always put all of the info into a computer and have a list made in a simple, logical manner, but we ALL know that statistics aren't the only factors in deciding great players. And the longer I watch hockey, I see this more and more clearly.
It amuses me to read the lists of 'what team will end the season where'--especially the way these mags have been SO wrong in the past. Obviously, these lists are done 'by committee' and I'm sure personal opinions come into play when picks are made. After all, these ARE just human beings doing the lists, so personal favorites would HAVE to be part of the decision making process. And for the most part, that is why the different mags will come up with different results. And this year, The Hockey News has decided that the Vancouver Canucks will win the Stanley Cup. AND that Detroit will be third in the west. AND that Pittsburgh is quite strong--and will place second in the east. AND that Chicago might have lost a lot, but is still an elite team that will be in the mix for defending their title. Whatever. As I said, I read these mostly for amusement--and then I read them halfway through the season and again at the end of the season, just so I can laugh at how wrong the predictions were.
The one thing from all of these magazines that DOES bother me, however, are their 'Top {insert number here}' lists. The Hockey News has their Top 50 players and, of course, I take exception with the position of some of the players. As a Red Wing fan, I can't believe that Datsyuk is a #4. Or Lidstrom is #17. Or Zetterberg is #22. AND that they are the only Wings to make the list. But, I AM biased. ;)
Of course, #1 and #2 are Crosby and Ovechkin. Everyone can be grateful that I am not a GM, because I would never have either one of these guys on my team. I WILL admit that they are talented, but I couldn't be a GM because I look at players too emotionally and not as to how well they play. Crosby wouldn't be on my team because--well, he's CROSBY! We all know the reasons to hate him. And I really don't like Ovechkin. And the reason? I think Ovechkin is the complete stereotypical, over-the-top athlete that people point to when they say why they hate sports. While some people say he is good for the sport because he adds excitement--much like some feel about Sean Avery--I am very old-fashioned and enjoy the low-key, humble, typical hockey player. Something Ovechkin would NEVER be accused of being. But enough of this.
I know that The Hockey News got input from "GMs, pro scouts and analysts," but I still don't understand why some of these players made the list. I guess I don't know HOW they picked some of these players as the best "right here and right now" with comments about them such as this:
"his scoring totals and plus-minus took a serious dip last season"
"he can...be a disaster in his own end and his playoff performance has been seriously lacking"
"...reputation has taken a beating...largely due to his inability at key moments"
" the team "had to put out an APB on him during the playoffs...and he sometimes has tunnel vision when it comes to offensive play...has the skill to become an elite NHL goal-scorer" but "does he have the will to do it?"
"you just wish he'd get a little more...involved"
The Hockey News measured the "on-ice contributions" of the players in order to decide who made this list. "...future potential and, to a lesser extent, past performance" were factors in rating the "best players going into the 2010-11 season." If past performance isn't going to be the BIGGEST factor in deciding the best players, how did they factor in on-ice contributions? It just isn't computing for me. But again, these are JUST human beings making the list, so bias will DEFINITELY be present.
Of course, I have no suggestion as to how these lists SHOULD be made. You could always put all of the info into a computer and have a list made in a simple, logical manner, but we ALL know that statistics aren't the only factors in deciding great players. And the longer I watch hockey, I see this more and more clearly.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
And Now Hockey...
There are very few places where I can go, things I can read, shows I can watch, that don't have a political bend or agenda. Hockey has, for the most part, been one of the only activities I can enjoy without being bombarded with politics. And this is politics from EVERY spectrum--the stuff I agree with and the stuff I loathe. Until now.
The Stanley Cup will be in the Chicago gay pride parade this weekend. And there are two reasons--in my opinion--for this. First, it is the Blackhawk organization's way of 'apologizing' to the gay community for someone writing 'he's gay' under Pronger's name on their whiteboard. This, of course, was an embarrassment for the team and ownership. The parade appearance is a way of 'showing' that there is no homophobia in the organization. And secondly, this is just another group jumping on the 'gay is okay' bandwagon. Let's face it, we hear this message day in and day out--and have for a few years now. I don't see this entire thing as showing just how tolerant the Blackhawks are, just shows that they know how to try and appease those who yell the loudest.
I am not just opposed to the Cup being in the gay pride parade. I would be just as upset, and find it just as disagreeable, if it made an appearance at a pro-life rally, or a pro-choice event. The Cup has no business being at a defense of marriage march OR a same-sex marriage march. I don't want to see the Cup at the Democrat OR Republican national conventions. Can't we have SOMETHING that has nothing to do with politics or political agendas? Can't we all come together and enjoy an event, no matter where we fall on the political spectrum? I was hoping that hockey could be the one place where we ONLY fight and disagree over which team is the best. I guess I was just being naive.
The Stanley Cup will be in the Chicago gay pride parade this weekend. And there are two reasons--in my opinion--for this. First, it is the Blackhawk organization's way of 'apologizing' to the gay community for someone writing 'he's gay' under Pronger's name on their whiteboard. This, of course, was an embarrassment for the team and ownership. The parade appearance is a way of 'showing' that there is no homophobia in the organization. And secondly, this is just another group jumping on the 'gay is okay' bandwagon. Let's face it, we hear this message day in and day out--and have for a few years now. I don't see this entire thing as showing just how tolerant the Blackhawks are, just shows that they know how to try and appease those who yell the loudest.
I am not just opposed to the Cup being in the gay pride parade. I would be just as upset, and find it just as disagreeable, if it made an appearance at a pro-life rally, or a pro-choice event. The Cup has no business being at a defense of marriage march OR a same-sex marriage march. I don't want to see the Cup at the Democrat OR Republican national conventions. Can't we have SOMETHING that has nothing to do with politics or political agendas? Can't we all come together and enjoy an event, no matter where we fall on the political spectrum? I was hoping that hockey could be the one place where we ONLY fight and disagree over which team is the best. I guess I was just being naive.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Very Sad--If It's True
The school I graduated from was VERY small. In fact, the entire school had just a few more students than were in The Youngest's graduating class. The stars of the school were the athletes, the basketball players. (Other than track, the school only had basketball.) I don't think a basketball player could have gotten into trouble if he had beheaded someone in front of the district superintendent. That is how much power the athletes had. And I found the same mind-set when I went to the local university--only THERE it was the hockey players than were worshiped as gods. And so it goes at every level of our country: athletes can get away with anything. And so we come to today's story of Patrick Kane's arrest.
By now, I think everyone--at least hockey fans--have heard the story. Kane and his cousin took a cab ride, the cabbie didn't have $.20 in change to give them, the cousin and Kane beat the guy and took their $15 back from him. The kids were arrested and now the waiting begins for 'the rest of the story (?).'
Thinking that ANYONE would beat another person over $.20 is ludicrous. To think that someone making the kind of money that Kane does, is beyond belief. However, it is almost implied in some of the reports that alcohol may have been a factor in this incident. (The area of Buffalo where the two were picked up is the night-club district.) Most people don't beat someone up just because they are drunk, but a lot of people do stupid things while drunk--especially when very, very young. (I still, even at my advanced age, can embarrass the hell out of myself if I have too many drinks.)
If the real reason this happened--if it proves to be true--is because Kane feels entitled as an athlete, then I hope he gets knocked down so low that he would need a ladder just to see the underside of a snake's belly. But, unfortunately, too many athletes--professional and non--believe they are entitled just because they can run, jump, hit, shoot, etc, better than most other people. And too many times, they are proven right.
I don't really expect anything to come of this incident--for Kane, anyway. I think there is a better than even chance that the cousin will take the fall and the cab driver will get hush money. Patrick Kane will have an NHL career for as long as he wants--or as long as he can score goals.
By now, I think everyone--at least hockey fans--have heard the story. Kane and his cousin took a cab ride, the cabbie didn't have $.20 in change to give them, the cousin and Kane beat the guy and took their $15 back from him. The kids were arrested and now the waiting begins for 'the rest of the story (?).'
Thinking that ANYONE would beat another person over $.20 is ludicrous. To think that someone making the kind of money that Kane does, is beyond belief. However, it is almost implied in some of the reports that alcohol may have been a factor in this incident. (The area of Buffalo where the two were picked up is the night-club district.) Most people don't beat someone up just because they are drunk, but a lot of people do stupid things while drunk--especially when very, very young. (I still, even at my advanced age, can embarrass the hell out of myself if I have too many drinks.)
If the real reason this happened--if it proves to be true--is because Kane feels entitled as an athlete, then I hope he gets knocked down so low that he would need a ladder just to see the underside of a snake's belly. But, unfortunately, too many athletes--professional and non--believe they are entitled just because they can run, jump, hit, shoot, etc, better than most other people. And too many times, they are proven right.
I don't really expect anything to come of this incident--for Kane, anyway. I think there is a better than even chance that the cousin will take the fall and the cab driver will get hush money. Patrick Kane will have an NHL career for as long as he wants--or as long as he can score goals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)