I have not been writing as much about sports just lately, other than, um....ahem.... bitter diatribes about league commissioners, particularly the NHL's Gary Bettman, everybody's favorite commissioner.
But this was an exciting weekend in sports that just passed, and it got me in the mood. I mean, from the incredible and memorable knockout punch that knocked Manny Pacquiao out cold, to the excitement of the NFL as the postseason nears, and everyone is trying to get into position, and even to basketball, which I usually do not follow so much until it gets closer to the postseason in spring, or at least until after the Super Bowl.
So, let's see....where to begin?
I think I'll start with the fight.
Marquez, who was not usually known as a spectacular boxer, and probably had not received the recognition that he deserves, probably changed all of that with one big, huge punch this past weekend. It was the biggest punch and most memorable of his career, surely, and the one that he will likely always be remembered for. The way that Pacman went down after that was just unbelievable! It was more brutal than what Manny himself had famously done to Ricky Hatton ijn the 2nd round of their huge showdown some years back in 2009, and that fight itself drew comparisons by some to the 1988 megafight between Tyson and Spinks that proved such a dud, with Tyson knocking Spinks out halfway through the 1st round.
True, this one came much later in the fight, but I would say that Marquez did at least as much damage to Pacquiao and his legacy as Pacquiao had done in building up that legacy, particularly by completely destroying Hatton almost four years ago now.
Manny may still be a superstar, but he will never be viewed in the same way again. He had entered this year with a reputation of being invincible, still basking in the glow of having been named the "Fighter of the Decade" in the 2000's. He had long been considered either the top pound for pound fighter in the sport, or number two behind Floyd Mayweather, and the superfight between those two seemed on again, off again. But there were times when it seemed like it would be inevitable, and indeed, how can the two best fighters in the sport, and in the same weight division, not go ahead and fight eventually?
But all of that was before this year. He ended last year with a win against Marquez, is biggest rival, and had won fifteen fights in a row. Usually, in dominant fashion. The only man to have won titles in eight different weight categories. Plus, he had a winning personality, and seemed to have so much going, both inside and outside the ring. The face of many commercial products, even the face of his country. There was just so much going for the guy, and he seemed untouchable in the ring.
Then, earlier in the year, he fought against Timothy Bradley, and lost his WBO Welterweight title in a split decision. But many who watched the fight felt that he had gotten robbed. It might not have been his most dominant performance, but most felt that he had won, and been robbed. Still, officially, a loss is a loss.
The potential superfight with Mayweather still dragged on, bogged down in details, and with Mayweather going to prison, it seemed perhaps the superfight, which many projected to have the biggest purse in the sport's history (and that's saying something!) just might never happen.
So, another fight with Marquez, and now this! The other fights between these two had been contentious, very tight fights. Manny had officially won two, and the other was a draw. But they were all hard fought, close fights, and quite a few people felt that Marquez had been screwed himself.
Pacquiao wanted a convincing win, a knock out. And perhaps he was a little too aggressive in pursuing that. Perhaps he even grew a little careless, because fighting that aggressively so close to the end of a round was too risky. I mean, he left himself wide open to that huge punch from Marquez.
At the time of the punch, Manny was up on points according to all of the refs. He had been dominating the fight, and had broken the nose of Marquez, who was not only bleeding from both nostrils, but from his mouth, as well. His eyes were swelling up. It was a matter of time, and he even acknowledged this in post fight interviews, saying that he knew Manny was going for the knockout, and that he very well was likely to get it, too, if things did not change.
But things changed. Boy, did they ever!
By now, everyone knows what happened. Marquez hit him Pacquiao hard, he knocked him out cold, dropping him flat on his face to the canvas. The referee started to approach Manny and seemed to count initially, then simply waved his arms when he realized that Manny was out cold.
When Marquez dropped Pacman, he also dropped his legacy. Dropped the aura of invincibility surrounding him much like Buster Douglas did to Tyson back in 1990. It was not just that he won, but how he won. Nobody but nobody expected Marquez to be able not only to knock Pacquaio out, but to knock him out cold, to knock him out with such brutal and efficient finality. It was a punch that left no doubt, and it seemed that Manny walked right into it. he just ate the punch, and dropped. His arms dropped before that, indicating that he was unconscious. What a memorable hit!
Watching the post fight interviews, clearly both fighters had taken a beating. Marquez had gotten a pretty solid beatdown himself, although perhaps that just makes his knockout win that much more impressive. As for Manny, he conducted one interview after being knocked out, before skipping the postfight conference, and going to the hospital. You could see the red marks on his face clearly. Again, what a knockout punch that was! No one could have foreseen a boxer with such a reputation getting downed by one punch so dramatically, so convincingly!
I don't know what will happen next. Opportunities could come in a hurry now for Marquez.
As for Manny? Well, there was talk of retirement, and Freddy Roach suggested that he needed to see what Manny could still do, and if he noticed a decline, that maybe it was time indeed to hang up the gloves.
But that seems unlikely, and there is already talk of a fifth fight between the two. If there is, let's be frank: it is unlikely that the outcome, whatever it may be, will be as memorable as this one was! Unbelievable!
Otherwise, let's look at the NFL.
The Patriots and Texans had a huge, and much anticipated showdown on Monday Night Football. But like many such showdowns, this was a letdown. New England raced out to an early 21-0 lead, en route to a brutal 42-14 victory. Houston still might hold the top seed in the AFC, but the aura of invincibility surely is done. Their two losses, at home to the Packers and at New England, were both convincing blowout wins from far more experienced teams, and this will surely raise doubts as to whether or not Houston can sustain their winning ways as the playoffs approach.
New England and Denver are suddenly within a game of the Texans, who looked for quite a while like they owned the top spot in the AFC. Now, they will need to win some games to even secure their division, with two tough games coming up against the Colts, who actually still have a shot at the division. Theoretically, if the Colts won out the rest of their games, they, and not the Texans, would be division champs.
Houston's vaunted defense was ripped apart last night. But then again, new England looks like they might have a real shot to produce some record numbers this year. The 2007 Patriots, who could boast a record smashing offense, and were the highest scoring team in NFL history with 589 points, are seen as the most dominant offense ever. Through thirteen games, these Patriots have scored 472 points. If they average more than 3 points through the next three games - and they actually look capable of it - they will in fact surpass their own record setting offense of six seasons ago, during that historic, if ultimately unsatisfying, season.
One team that looked very dominant this weekend was the Seattle Seahawks, who completely obliterated their division rivals, the Arizona Cardinals, 58-0. It was the second most lopsided shutout win that I have ever seen, just behind (you guessed it) the Patriots whipping the Titans, 59-0, in the October snow of New England back in 2009.
It got me to thinking about some of the most lopsided games in NFL history. Also, since two teams managed to reach the fifty point mark this past weekend, it got me to wondering as well about how often teams have scored record amounts of points in a game.
Off the top of my head, two teams managed to score in the fifties during Super Bowl wins - the San Francisco 49ers did it in Super Bowl XXIV, 55-10, and the Dallas Cowboys did it in Super Bowl XXVII, 52-17. Three other teams managed to reach fifty or more points in playoff games that I can remember, including the Jacksonville Jaguars in 1999-2000 season (62-7 over Miami), the 19995 Philadelphia Eagles (58-37 over Detroit), and the Arizona Cardinals (51-45 in OT over Green Bay). That's pretty impressive, but how about the teams that reached the sixty point plateau? The Patriots have come close recently, and Seattle came close this weekend, but neither team actually managed to get there.
Since I have followed football, only a handful of teams managed to do this. That includes (perhaps surprisingly) the Jets back in 1985, the Cincinnati Bengals back in 1989, the Jaguars back in the 1999-2000 playoffs, and the New Orleans Saints last season.
Here's a list of some of the games since the early 1970's::
January 15, 1999 (playoffs) - Jaguars 62, Dolphins 7
September 16, 1973 - Falcons 62, Saints 7
October 23, 2011 - Saints 62, Colts 7
December 17, 1989 - Bengals 61, Oilers 7
November 17, 1985 - Jets 62, Buccaneers 28
December 17, 1972 - Bengals 61, Oilers 17
November 26, 1972 - Giants 62, Eagles 10
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Monday, December 10, 2012
Around The Bend December 10, 2012
Supreme Court Hearing on Gay Marriage
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments from both sides of the gay marriage debate, as appeals over both DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) and California's Prop. 8 ban on gay marriage took center stage. An elderly New Yorker sued against the Federal Government's 1996 DOMA law, saying that it violated her right to have her same sex marriage recognized and validated. It also stipulates that only partners in opposite sex marriages can receive federal benefits, and same sex partners are barred from this. In the meantime, the National Organization for Marriage suggested that the Court's willingness to take on California's Prop. 8 indicates the Court's desire to reinstate the law. The Supreme Court will be taking on both cases, and either or both cases could prove to be landmark decisions on this divisive issue. Advocates on both sides of the debate seemed optimistic about the court siding with them.
http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-both-sides-gay-marriage-debate-voice-011227265.html
Up On The Hill
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of (Republican from Kentucky) wound up doing something quite rare on the floor of Congress - filibustering his own proposal. He was forced to, when a political risk apparently backfired. The Republican was not counting on a straight up vote in the Senate. Yet, when Democrats met and, after a few hours, decided that McConnell's request for a vote on a proposal of giving the President more power by essentially giving the President the power to raise the debt ceiling, but allowing Congress to veto if it came down to it, should stand for a straight up vote on the floor. McConnell had to object to what he himself had proposed, being rather taken by surprise, evidently, and forced into a very awkward situation.
http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2012/12/07/McConnell-filibusters-own-proposal/UPI-24531354905388/
Crist Switches Parties
Former Republican governor of Florida has officially joined the Democratic party. The move was anticipated for some time, but he made it official last week. He had been making a run as an independent for Senate, but now has sought the backing and name recognition of the Democrats.
Around the World
Middle East
Syria - The tide seems to have turned against President Bashad Assar and government forces loyal to the regime. Commanders of rebel forces have elected a 30-member leadership council as well as a chief of staff, while rebel forces themselves are closing in on Damascus, the war-torn nation's capital city. One group that was excluded was Jabhat al-Nusra, who were influenced by al-Qaeda, as the rebels want to remain friendly with Western nations, and figured that this group would frighten potential allies away. Even some allies of the old regime, such as Russia, have hinted that the odds are not good for Assar and his forces to hold power for very much longer.
Egypt - President Morrissey reversed his own policies and nullified the controversial decree that had triggered so many violent protests in Egypt, a nation that has seen quite a few such protests in the last couple of years or so.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-egypt-morsi-20121208,0,2184653.story
Europe
Serbia - In a very bizarre story, the Serbian ambassador for NATO, Branislav Milinkovic, has taken his own life. He was evidently chatting with colleagues in a parking garage at the airport in Brussels, Belgium, when he suddenly just walked away, climbed over the barrier at the edge, and leaped to his death. He was dead by the time that his colleagues reached him.
http://news.yahoo.com/officials-serbias-nato-ambassador-leaps-death-093459101.html
United Kingdom - There was a widely publicized hoax that had two Australian radio dj's cal the hospital where Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge, was being held. The nurse had apparently been convinced by the dj's, who had pretended to be the Queen herself. The nurse who answered was found dead, evidently of mysterious circumstances. Jacintha Saldhanha, aged 46, was found dead at the same King Edward VII hospital in London where Kate Middleton was being held.
http://news.yahoo.com/nurse-died-kate-hoax-call-india-112732051.html
Latin America & Caribbean
Brazil - Famed architect Oscar Niemeyer (1907-2012) has died. Niemeyer helped to design much of Brazil's planned capital, Brasilia, which is located in the center of the nation, and was built on what was largely empty land, far from much of everything else in the nation. Quite a bit of the capital city was based on Niemeyer's vision for it. He also helped to design much of the United Nations building in New York City, and was one of the most highly regarded of Latin American architects. He was 104 years old.
Asia
Philippines - A very powerful typhoon has struck this island nation, leaving over six hundred dead, hundreds of others missing (as of the time I am writing this), and forced over one hundred thousand people to flee their homes for safety. Many roads are blocked, and communications systems have been damaged, complicating recovery efforts there.
Japan - A powerful earthquake hit this nation again, in the same region most affected by last year's earthquake and tsunami, although fears of another major tsunami like that one that hit this island nation early last year were allayed. The primary earthquake registered 7.3 on the richter scale, and hit early on Friday evening. A tsunami warning had been issued for the coast shortly after the earthquake, as there were warnings of waves of up to 2.2 metres high, although these projections were later lifted.
Africa
South Africa - Ex-President and legendary anti-apartheid leader Nelson Mandela has been hospitalized in Pretoria, said curent President Jacob Zuma. He will be undergo tests to determine his present health conditions.
Ghana - Citing technical glitches during the day of election, this nation's government announced a second day of voting. The questions rising from these debacles with this particular election have put into question Ghana's traditional reputation as a beacon of democracy in a region that has been hit hard by violence and turmoil.
http://news.yahoo.com/election-underscores-ghanas-democratic-reputation-190326024.html
The United Nations
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20653018
Sports
France Ligue 1
In French soccer on Sunday, Lyon managed to get the top spot in the league by defeating St. Etienne, 1-0. That gave them a five point cushion over star-studded Paris St. Germain, who had started the season off hot, but have since been struggling, although PSG won easily on Sunday, 4-0 over Evian Thonon Gaillard. Olympique Marseille were shocked at home, 3-0, by Lorient. Lyon has 34 points thus far, good enough for first place, while OM and PSG are tied for second with 29 points each.
NFL
The biggest news by far in the league was the tragedy in Dallas, where Cowboys nose tackle Joshua Brent has been charged with vehicular manslaughter after a car accident while he was driving while intoxicated cost Cowboys practice squad linebacker Jerry Brown his life. It was the second tragedy in one week's timespan in the NFL, and has many up in arms, wanting the league to do something. RIP, Jerry Brown.
The Cowboys played with that shadow of tragedy hanging over them. They seemed destined for a loss against the Bengals, who had outplayed Dallas through most of the game, and held a decent, 19-10 lead in the game. But the Cowboys mounted an impressive comeback to win, edging the Bengals, 20-19, keeping their hopes of the playoffs, and possibly an NFC East division title, alive.
This was a good week to be in the NFC East, as every team in the division won. Washington also came from behind to defeat the usually tough Baltimore Ravens, who dropped a second game in a row, and suddenly look vulnerable, having seemed a sure bet for the second seed two weeks ago, and now being in the fourth seeded position for the AFC. The Eagles also managed to break their eight game loisng streak by beating the Bucs in Tampa, 23-21.
The Giants hung onto their narrow lead in the division, by beating the team that seemed to always beat them. Not only did the Giants beat the Saints, but they did to the Saints what the Saints had done to the Giants in prior meetings with Brees as quarterback. The Saints usually scored near fifty, and held the Giants to the twenties in those meetings, but the G-Men turned the table, winning 52-27. A big win for the Giants, who managed to score more than fifty points for the first time since the 1986 season, when they won their first ever Super Bowl. Not sure what's more depressing, if they had not reached this milestone since then, or that I am old enough to say I can actually remember that game!
Sure, the NFC East is tight, as it always seems to be, but it seemed that, until recently, other teams were making it easy for themselves. Like, say, the Bears, who a few weeks ago, were 7-1, and nipping on the heels of the Atlanta Falcons for the top spot in the NFC. But the Bears lost their fourth game in a five game stretch, this time to their division rivals, the Minnesota Vikings, and really look like they are reeling. The division title seemed almost a sure thing when they were 7-1. Now, the playoffs seem to be slipping away, unless they can do something to reverse this trend in a hurry, because time is running out. In the meantime, the Packers took sole possession of first place in the NFC North, for the first time this season, with a win over the Lions in snowy Lambeau Field.
In the NFC South, the 11-1 Falcons, who have looked very impressive, seemed to show the pitfalls of such a fast start, as they lost to the Panthers in Carolina, in one of the biggest surprises of the day. They were pretty much dominated throughout. The Saints and Bucs also lost, and Atlanta looks like they will be the only representative for the playoffs in this division.
The NFC West has some very impressive teams at the moment, as well. The Rams had a big comeback to pull off a huge win at Buffalo, while the 49ers held off the Miami Dolphins. In the only divisional game for the NFC West today, the Seahawks handed the Cardinals their ninth straight loss, which gives Arizona the longest streak in the league all by themselves. This was done in record fashion, as Seattle destroyed the Cardinals in every way a team can be destroyed, 58-0, in Seattle.
In the AFC, I already mentioned the Ravens and Bengals losing, but the Steelers also lost, getting shocked at home by San Diego. Their season is in serious jeopardy of spiraling out of control, as they head to Dallas next week. The only team in the AFC North doing well at the moment would be the Cleveland Browns, who dominated Kansas City for their third straight win.
The Broncos won again, beating Oakland on Thursday night. They will definitely be watching the big match up between the current top two seeds in the AFC on Monday Night Football, as the Patriots host the Texans, in what will be a big test for both. The Jets held off the Jaguars to keep New York's slim playoff hopes alive, while the Colts mounted yet another comeback, engineered by star rookie quarterback Andrew Luck. The Colts had been dominated for most of the day by their division rival Titans, but they came back to post a huge victory. Given the struggles of some of the other AFC playoff contenders recently, the Colts chances to qualify for the postseason looks very good at the moment. With a little Luck on their side this season, the Colts have completely turned it around from last year's 2-14 mark (sorry, I had to do it).
NBA
The New York Knicks stunned the defending NBA champions, the Miami Heat, in their big showdown for first place in the East. Sure, it's still the early going for the season, but the Knicks, who have perenially had among the highest pay rolls in the league, seem to be living up to their billing. Not only did they win convincingly, as they hit eighteen three-pointers on the road at Miami en route to a 112-92 victory. The Knicks record now stands at 14-4, best in the East.
In the meantime, perennial Western favorites, the Los Angeles Lakers, who were widely considered to be a "dream team" of sorts after some major offseason moves, continue to struggle this season. In a showdown with the Oklahoma City Thunder, who knocked the Lakers off in last season's playoffs, the Lakers fell behind early, and were unable to mount a complete comeback, losing 114-108. Despite some incredibly high expectations heading into the season, the Lakers record stands at 9-11 after twenty games, with approximately one quarter of the season done with.
Boxing
The much anticipated fourth chapter between superstar champion boxer Manny Pacquiao and Juan Manuel Marquez ended very abruptly right at the end of the sixth round late on Saturday night. Pacquiao was coming in with a right hand seconds before the bell sounded to end the round, when Marquez caught him with an incredibly hard right that put Pacman to the mat, and he was unable to beat the count. In fact, he was knocked out cold and remained down for several seconds, and was apparently not moving for quite a few seconds. At the time that the fight was ended, evidently all of the judges had Pacquiao up 47-46. This was most likely the final meeting between these two, in what has been an incredible and tense rivalry, although they seem to friendly with one another outside the ring.
Evidently, Mitt Romney not only attended the fight, but even gave the Pacman a pep talk just before the fight. I wonder, in retrospect, if perhaps it was unwise of Manny to hear Mitt out, since Mitt lost the election after being so absolutely certain of victory, to the point that he was boasting about it. Pacquiao was expected by many to win, and he surely expected to win, as well. Maybe Romney's luck spread to the Pacman?
To be fair, Pacquiao actually had a brilliant strategy, and was working it almost to perfection. Almost. But he was caught with a couple of right hands, and that obviously included the final one that stopped the fight by dropping Manny face first to the mat. He looked out of it after that. It was just an unbelievable right by Marquez, one of the hardest hits that I've seen in that weight category. Unfortunately for the Pacman, this probably shatters that illusion of invincibility that he had enjoyed for quite a long time. True, this was his second loss in a row, technically. Yet, that last fight, many people feel that he had been robbed. In this one, Marquez left no doubt who the winner was. What a stunner!
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/boxing-pacquiao-gets-romney-pep-talk-marquez-bout-035840752--box.html
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Sports Commisioners With Too Much Influence
Okay, okay, how much fun is it to talk about commissioners of sports, instead of the actual sports? Who wants to talk about the chances of your favorite team making it to the playoffs or even having a chance at the title, when you can talk about the latest measures by the commissioner of the sport, right?
Of course, it's not just the commissioners of the sports. It's the owners of the team, and league officials.
The NHL wants to limit player contracts to five years, tops.
"It's the hill we will die on," said NHL deputy commissioner Daly. He also claimed that owners were insulted by what the players had suggested to them.
In the meantime, hopes for a season are growing slimmer and dimmer with each passing day. One wonders why NHL officials such as Daly seem actually willing to forsake another season entire. Are these good business practices? Does it make sense to possibly cancel yet another season, when fans are clearly going to be very, very pissed off, since this is nothing new?
Daly seems willing enough, or so it would seem. He was quoted recently as having "no new ideas" for the NHL labor talks. Is that a man earning his money?
In 1995, a shortened season was salvaged. it was 48 games for each team, and Gary Bettman has said that he would not permit a shorter season than that. But that was done after the lockout stretched into January. It is December now, and we are nearing the holiday season. It seems with the current impasse, the gridlock is likely to continue on into, and through, the holiday season. That would bring us to January.
At that point, the season is on the verge of being cancelled altogether.
But Gary Bettman and the NHL lockout are not the only places where officials are making news for the wrong reasons. In the NBA, soon to be gone NBA commissioner David Stern has fined the San Antonio Spurs $250k (see the article below for details).
Apparently, David Stern does not like the San Antonio Spurs very much. I can kind of understand it, in the sense that the Spurs probably are not that marketable. They just don't have the flash and high profile of, say, the Lakers. They never have, and they never will.
But here's the thing: the league goes way too far in their endorsement and favoritism of big teams, and the Lakers in particular. Read the article attached, and it makes mention that David Stern once declared that his dream NBA Finals match would be the Lakers versus the Lakers.
Really? The success, or failure, of the league should center around one team? You either love them (like many fair weather, bandwagon fans do - and I'm willing to bet that anyone reading this probably knows a fan of the team with the ugliest uniform and the flashiest image in basketball, and perhaps in all sports overall), or you hate them. Perhaps even loathe them.
I fall into the latter category (can you tell?). I just never really like when one team enjoys all of the success, and the Lakers are that team. I remember their five championships in the eighties, when they were team of the decade, and more recently, they won five more in the last decade. That's ten titles, and two team of the decade honors in three decades.
Are they really just that good, and deserve their success? Maybe. But what worries me is when someone like David Stern, being in the position that he's in, says something like that. I mean, really? You can't think of a better NBA Finals series than the same team against itself, when you are supposed to represent every team in the league? How can a commissioner of a sport actually say something like that out loud? And let's be frank, also: given the funny coincidence of the Lakers constantly winding up getting these strange deals where they pick up huge talents for not much (let's call a spade a spade), you begin to wonder if there is not a little favoritism going on. Is it really that unthinkable?
Maybe I am in the minority, but my nightmare NBA Finals series is one in which the Lakers are involved. I mean, really, they just make it to so many, that it is tiresome. The same team, year in, year out. How interesting is that? There are teams that never seem to make it. Some teams have never been there, and never even come close. There are other teams that came close once, maybe twice, and that's it. But the Lakers make it all the time, and I'm not entirely convinced that it's because they just seem to run things better, or are smarter. It seems mostly that they enjoy success because they are the more marketable team, according to key league officials, and so they get some breaks that other teams simply cannot compete with.
I mean, really. Why is it that you never hear about the Portland Trailblazers getting such talent for nothing, zippo. Or the Toronto Raptors? Perhaps the Washington Wizards? Or even teams that have actually enjoyed some success fairly recently, like the Utah Jazz, or the Nets (who seemed on the verge of getting Howard last spring, yet somehow it did not happen)? Why not the Knicks, since they are in a huge city, and I would imagine that they are marketable? Maybe the Celtics?
No, it seems it's always the Lakers that are favored. The Knicks acquire star talent, but not a solid team. the Miami Heat, who may be the new Lakers of the east, were also blessed recently with a load of talent almost overnight, although that was not necessarily foul play. The Celtics had such a scenario, as well. But did you notice that nobody has them with the regularity that the Lakers seem to? I wonder why that is, anyway?
But that's what we get, I guess. The Lakers versus the Lakers as the ideal scenario? That's the best, most interesting scenario that the supposedly best minds for the sport can offer? Not just one franchise that serves as the most annoying franchise in sports, but two?
Yes, Los Angeles seems to get all the breaks in basketball, somehow. They won ten titles since I started watching and paying attention to sports, and I'm not that old. They have also been there so many other times. Always, it has to be the Lakers. It's so repetitive, and frankly, I tend to lose interest and tune out when it comes to repeats. Why watch another Lakers finals, when I've seen them before, time and time and time again? Something is wrong here. Yet, this is what the league wants? More of the same? To the point that they somehow allow (encourage?) the Lakers to get all the breaks, while penalizing the Spurs for their success? Really?
Maybe that appeals to some. But personally, I was disgusted when the Lakers, yet again, somehow managed to get a load of talent in the offseason, with very high profile names to boost their chances of a title yet again. This is not the only team in the league. Hell, they are not even the only team in Los Angeles. How about spreading the wealth a little bit? Parody in the NFL, for example, may have it's drawbacks. But at least it also serves to break any one team's dominance (or make it far more challenging for a team to achieve such dominance), which makes things more interesting. Why can't the NBA follow suit? What are they so afraid of? It's not like the Lakers are destined to fail under such a scenario. Far from it. They just would not automatically succeed.
Apparently, that's just too much of a risk for David Stern and the NBA. God forbid we go the playoff months of May and June without having to see the precious purple and gold once again, right?
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nhl-owners-players-meet-3rd-085644819--nhl.html
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba--david-stern-stumbles-again-in-his-failed-culture-war-against-the-spurs-194828970.html
Of course, it's not just the commissioners of the sports. It's the owners of the team, and league officials.
The NHL wants to limit player contracts to five years, tops.
"It's the hill we will die on," said NHL deputy commissioner Daly. He also claimed that owners were insulted by what the players had suggested to them.
In the meantime, hopes for a season are growing slimmer and dimmer with each passing day. One wonders why NHL officials such as Daly seem actually willing to forsake another season entire. Are these good business practices? Does it make sense to possibly cancel yet another season, when fans are clearly going to be very, very pissed off, since this is nothing new?
Daly seems willing enough, or so it would seem. He was quoted recently as having "no new ideas" for the NHL labor talks. Is that a man earning his money?
In 1995, a shortened season was salvaged. it was 48 games for each team, and Gary Bettman has said that he would not permit a shorter season than that. But that was done after the lockout stretched into January. It is December now, and we are nearing the holiday season. It seems with the current impasse, the gridlock is likely to continue on into, and through, the holiday season. That would bring us to January.
At that point, the season is on the verge of being cancelled altogether.
But Gary Bettman and the NHL lockout are not the only places where officials are making news for the wrong reasons. In the NBA, soon to be gone NBA commissioner David Stern has fined the San Antonio Spurs $250k (see the article below for details).
Apparently, David Stern does not like the San Antonio Spurs very much. I can kind of understand it, in the sense that the Spurs probably are not that marketable. They just don't have the flash and high profile of, say, the Lakers. They never have, and they never will.
But here's the thing: the league goes way too far in their endorsement and favoritism of big teams, and the Lakers in particular. Read the article attached, and it makes mention that David Stern once declared that his dream NBA Finals match would be the Lakers versus the Lakers.
Really? The success, or failure, of the league should center around one team? You either love them (like many fair weather, bandwagon fans do - and I'm willing to bet that anyone reading this probably knows a fan of the team with the ugliest uniform and the flashiest image in basketball, and perhaps in all sports overall), or you hate them. Perhaps even loathe them.
I fall into the latter category (can you tell?). I just never really like when one team enjoys all of the success, and the Lakers are that team. I remember their five championships in the eighties, when they were team of the decade, and more recently, they won five more in the last decade. That's ten titles, and two team of the decade honors in three decades.
Are they really just that good, and deserve their success? Maybe. But what worries me is when someone like David Stern, being in the position that he's in, says something like that. I mean, really? You can't think of a better NBA Finals series than the same team against itself, when you are supposed to represent every team in the league? How can a commissioner of a sport actually say something like that out loud? And let's be frank, also: given the funny coincidence of the Lakers constantly winding up getting these strange deals where they pick up huge talents for not much (let's call a spade a spade), you begin to wonder if there is not a little favoritism going on. Is it really that unthinkable?
Maybe I am in the minority, but my nightmare NBA Finals series is one in which the Lakers are involved. I mean, really, they just make it to so many, that it is tiresome. The same team, year in, year out. How interesting is that? There are teams that never seem to make it. Some teams have never been there, and never even come close. There are other teams that came close once, maybe twice, and that's it. But the Lakers make it all the time, and I'm not entirely convinced that it's because they just seem to run things better, or are smarter. It seems mostly that they enjoy success because they are the more marketable team, according to key league officials, and so they get some breaks that other teams simply cannot compete with.
I mean, really. Why is it that you never hear about the Portland Trailblazers getting such talent for nothing, zippo. Or the Toronto Raptors? Perhaps the Washington Wizards? Or even teams that have actually enjoyed some success fairly recently, like the Utah Jazz, or the Nets (who seemed on the verge of getting Howard last spring, yet somehow it did not happen)? Why not the Knicks, since they are in a huge city, and I would imagine that they are marketable? Maybe the Celtics?
No, it seems it's always the Lakers that are favored. The Knicks acquire star talent, but not a solid team. the Miami Heat, who may be the new Lakers of the east, were also blessed recently with a load of talent almost overnight, although that was not necessarily foul play. The Celtics had such a scenario, as well. But did you notice that nobody has them with the regularity that the Lakers seem to? I wonder why that is, anyway?
But that's what we get, I guess. The Lakers versus the Lakers as the ideal scenario? That's the best, most interesting scenario that the supposedly best minds for the sport can offer? Not just one franchise that serves as the most annoying franchise in sports, but two?
Yes, Los Angeles seems to get all the breaks in basketball, somehow. They won ten titles since I started watching and paying attention to sports, and I'm not that old. They have also been there so many other times. Always, it has to be the Lakers. It's so repetitive, and frankly, I tend to lose interest and tune out when it comes to repeats. Why watch another Lakers finals, when I've seen them before, time and time and time again? Something is wrong here. Yet, this is what the league wants? More of the same? To the point that they somehow allow (encourage?) the Lakers to get all the breaks, while penalizing the Spurs for their success? Really?
Maybe that appeals to some. But personally, I was disgusted when the Lakers, yet again, somehow managed to get a load of talent in the offseason, with very high profile names to boost their chances of a title yet again. This is not the only team in the league. Hell, they are not even the only team in Los Angeles. How about spreading the wealth a little bit? Parody in the NFL, for example, may have it's drawbacks. But at least it also serves to break any one team's dominance (or make it far more challenging for a team to achieve such dominance), which makes things more interesting. Why can't the NBA follow suit? What are they so afraid of? It's not like the Lakers are destined to fail under such a scenario. Far from it. They just would not automatically succeed.
Apparently, that's just too much of a risk for David Stern and the NBA. God forbid we go the playoff months of May and June without having to see the precious purple and gold once again, right?
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nhl-owners-players-meet-3rd-085644819--nhl.html
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba--david-stern-stumbles-again-in-his-failed-culture-war-against-the-spurs-194828970.html
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Sleepless in New Jersey: The Flip Side of the Holiday Season
I couldn't sleep last night. Woke up maybe around a quarter to two in the morning, and then the dog needed to go to the bathroom, evidently. Basia got up and opened the front door for him, and he went out and did his business. Then we all tried to go back to sleep, but it was largely unsuccessful.
We got to talking, and apparently, we had both been awake for some time, prior to the dog whining and getting us both up. Neither of us could sleep.
Why?
Well, here's the thing: we went Christmas shopping that evening, prior to going to bed, and we both overspent.
So, we both felt guilty.
I felt guilty because of all the money that I spent on some items recently. She felt the same way - specifically about some perfume that she had purchased at Macy's that evening.
It seems a bit odd to me, this notion that we should have guilt and stress so automatically associated with the holiday season. Why?
Well, most likely because we are an overly consumer-oriented society. We attach the utmost importance to money and money-oriented things. It becomes a badge of honor to get the most expensive things, and this is most actively encouraged during this time of the year. Since we are shopping for other people, it can be viewed as noble. We want to be seen as generous, willing to give.
So, businesses encourage us to part ways with our well-earned money. I heard somewhere a few years ago that retail stores expect about 50% of all their revenues from holiday shopping. We buy huge amounts of things, presents and such, for others. Many of us (probably most of us) also buy some things for ourselves, since the sales and such that are a trademark of this season also tend to seem so good, that we might as well precisely during this season of savings. I mean, who doesn't, right? I'll admit to having done this in the past, and even this year already. I always want to knock this off, thinking it a bad habit. Yet, I almost always wind up getting myself something for the holidays, as well, even though I know (or think I know) better.
Of course, there are reports that these savings are not actually savings. That reports of just how much you can and will save are, in fact, greatly exaggerated - and this is particularly true, evidently, for Black Friday.
Now, there's a "holiday" where people seem to just go nuts, and far too often, lose all sense of perspective and balance. I went shopping yesterday, and will likely go Christmas shopping again soon, but one day that I have managed to steadfastly stick to my guns of going nowhere near the stores is Black Friday. This is not to say that I have not been tempted - I will readily admit that I have. Plus, there is a bit of intrigue and mystery surrounding it for people who have not (yet) participated, so I guess there is a mix of that, as well as the romance of getting some new things at rock bottom prices.
But nothing comes too easily, and despite the traditional magic with many are taught to view the Christmas season with, we learn, as adults, that nothing comes without a price, even when the prices is advertised to be lower.
We got to talking, and apparently, we had both been awake for some time, prior to the dog whining and getting us both up. Neither of us could sleep.
Why?
Well, here's the thing: we went Christmas shopping that evening, prior to going to bed, and we both overspent.
So, we both felt guilty.
I felt guilty because of all the money that I spent on some items recently. She felt the same way - specifically about some perfume that she had purchased at Macy's that evening.
It seems a bit odd to me, this notion that we should have guilt and stress so automatically associated with the holiday season. Why?
Well, most likely because we are an overly consumer-oriented society. We attach the utmost importance to money and money-oriented things. It becomes a badge of honor to get the most expensive things, and this is most actively encouraged during this time of the year. Since we are shopping for other people, it can be viewed as noble. We want to be seen as generous, willing to give.
So, businesses encourage us to part ways with our well-earned money. I heard somewhere a few years ago that retail stores expect about 50% of all their revenues from holiday shopping. We buy huge amounts of things, presents and such, for others. Many of us (probably most of us) also buy some things for ourselves, since the sales and such that are a trademark of this season also tend to seem so good, that we might as well precisely during this season of savings. I mean, who doesn't, right? I'll admit to having done this in the past, and even this year already. I always want to knock this off, thinking it a bad habit. Yet, I almost always wind up getting myself something for the holidays, as well, even though I know (or think I know) better.
Of course, there are reports that these savings are not actually savings. That reports of just how much you can and will save are, in fact, greatly exaggerated - and this is particularly true, evidently, for Black Friday.
Now, there's a "holiday" where people seem to just go nuts, and far too often, lose all sense of perspective and balance. I went shopping yesterday, and will likely go Christmas shopping again soon, but one day that I have managed to steadfastly stick to my guns of going nowhere near the stores is Black Friday. This is not to say that I have not been tempted - I will readily admit that I have. Plus, there is a bit of intrigue and mystery surrounding it for people who have not (yet) participated, so I guess there is a mix of that, as well as the romance of getting some new things at rock bottom prices.
But nothing comes too easily, and despite the traditional magic with many are taught to view the Christmas season with, we learn, as adults, that nothing comes without a price, even when the prices is advertised to be lower.
Friday, December 7, 2012
The Politics Of Paranoia
Yesterday, I wrote about the politics of paranoia, but really only restricted it to external views, particularly that of the United Nations, and the belief (which I find more than just a little paranoid) of some inevitable United nations takeover.
Today, I would like to focus on paranoia on the domestic front.
There are some people that I personally know (not about to mention names or anything, but they certainly exist) who truly believe certain things to be true, although they are far from indisputable - and in many cases, far from credible.
One, for example, is that President Obama is already taking over with dictatorial powers.
Now, I have admitted in the past, and will readily admit presently, to not being the biggest fan of President Barack Obama. When his 2008 campaign seemed full of energy and promise and, yes, hope, for so many millions of Americans (and many millions of people outside American borders), he was viewed almost as if he possessed divine status. People seemed to think that the man could do no wrong.
But I'll admit to not being swept up in the thing. The first time that I voted was in 1992, and I had felt extremely excited that a Democrat actually had a chance to win the White House. Clinton had not been my first choice back then (Senator Tom Harkin was). Initially, it seemed like he was destined to get his ass kicked. After all, George H.W. Bush had enjoyed over 90% approval ratings, supposedly, a little more than a year earlier. He looked pretty strong early in 1992, and it was not all that clear that he would prove vulnerable. Plus, even when he did seem vulnerable enough to potentially lose the race, there was Ross Perot who surprised many and came out of seemingly nowhere to be a viable candidate, even perhaps favored.
Yet in one unbelievable week, Ross Perot dropped out of the race, right around the time of the Democratic National Convention. And anyone who saw Clinton in this past Democratic Convention, or knows how effective a speaker he can be, Clinton was amazing during a very successful Convention for the Democrats. They jumped ahead in the polls, and never looked back.
Still, this is not a blog about my own faith, but rather, my own disillusionment with politics. Needless to say, Clinton disappointed me. he was not what I had hoped he would be, or even thought he would be. I still voted for him again in 1996, because it was between him and Dole, and I thought that was an easy choice. But my enthusiasm was not nearly so strong.
Now, when Obama came around in 2008, I had long lost my belief in politicians, and particularly, of the two major parties. I had come to believe that neither party was actually interested in anything more than getting sponsors and seeking for more and more funding in order to win elections, so that they could remain viable and get more sponsors and seek more funding. My skepticism had grown considerably, and although he sounded great and seemed different, I still viewed him within the prism of a self-serving politician with a false sense of entitlement. I hoped that my admittedly harsh judgment was wrong, but the fact of the matter is that the past four years have proven this judgment right, harsh or not.
Like any politician, Obama did not keep his promises. He did not do many of the things that he promised to. Yet, that does not bother me so much, because a President is not all-powerful (nor should he, or someday she, be). Through little, and possibly no fault of his own, he was not the man who was able to bring the two parties together. However, Obama said he would protect the environment, and he did not. He claimed he would close Gitmo, and he did not. He had criticized his predecessor for endorsing torture, yet he kept that option open for future Presidents, as well as himself. He claimed that he would end the war in Iraq, yet he simply reduced the American forces there to 50,000 and simply stated it was no longer a war, while increasing American presence in Afghanistan. Finally, this is the President that signed the NDAA into law, although he expressed regret even while doing so.
When he first got into office, I was tentatively happy. After eight long years of Bush & Co., most Americans (and almost the entire rest of the world) seemed ready for something different. I was just glad he was not Bush, and hoped he might prove to be better my admittedly low expectations. But, he was not. In many regards, in fact, he has at times been alarmingly and inexcusably similar to his predecessor.
In short, he has not been the President that many had hoped he would be.
But is he a dictator?
True, he has assumed alarming levels of power, and essentially suspended habeas corpus with the flick of his pen.
Still, that does not warrant comparisons to Hitler or Nazi Germany. He finally succeeded where his predecessors (note the plural there) failed in passing through a fairer healthcare system - no small feat in the United States of America. To show just how difficult and extreme the opposition, look at how many were outraged by this, and remain outraged still. CEO's threatened to fire employees if Obama won this past election. Some Denny's raised their prices, and the owner of Olive Garden and Red Lobster expressed strong opposition to Obamacare by threatening reducing full-time workers to part-time. After sales took a hit, he backed off this plan, which if anything, should prove as yet another example of the power of the consumer in this extremely capitalist country of ours.
People seem to believe that this guy is truly on the verge of grabbing all sorts of powers, and all sorts of crazy conspiracy theories abound. He is about to abolish the right to bear arms. Obama is a secret Muslim, and he is about to convert all Americans to Islam. He is not a "real citizen" of the United States, the nation that he has been fairly elected President of - twice, now. Despite winning the election, a few thousand people in numerous states are hoping to secede from the Union, and despite being a tiny, tiny minority of the population, just look at how much press they get.
Now, again, I am not thrilled with Obama, and am less than impressed with his track record. Obviously, people were wrong in believing him to be almost like a divinity, and that he would come into office and fix America's problems with a wave of some magic political wand. Like Clinton said, no President would have been able to fix the problems in such a short time, because the problems were so extensive.
Yet, it seems like many conservatives must have been asleep for the previous eight years, because all of the problems that Obama was not able to fix were suddenly huge problems, although they not only existed, but were in fact caused, by Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush. Those conservative critics of Obama, who so loudly criticize this man to the point of demonizing him, seemed somehow silent prior to the election in 2008,l although that was precisely when these problems sprouted to begin with.
So, yes, I have my difference with Obama and his supporters, to say the least. And yes, these include abuses of power that I personally find absolutely inexcusable. However, I will not question his nationality, or slap a moustache on him, or claim that all of these enormous problems that the nation faces are his responsibility because they exist on his watch, as if the previous history of how they mushroomed simply were erased, or conveniently did not exist.
I do believe that it is the responsibility of an informed citizenry to keep strong pressure on their elected officials, because they are the public servants, not rulers for private interests. These are people hungry for power, and it would be irresponsible to simply let them have their way.
But to come out with such outrageous nonsense? Fine, you disagree with Obama, but to make it appear as if he has ordered troops to come knocking on your door as we speak, to take the guns away, and rag you off to some concentration camp?
Ridiculous.
I know not what course others may take, but as for me, I choose rationalism over paranoia.
Below is a link to an article all about the Red Lobster/Olive Garden thing. I rarely ate at either place, but I can tell you this much: so long as this man remains in charge of these places, I will actively seek to stay away from them. the one truly indisputable huge thing that I think Obama did right (although he did not go nearly far enough with it) was to bring a fairer, more affordable healthcare to Americans, and I don't want to hear any more about super rich people lecturing me, and all the others who helped these rich elites become rich elites, all about the evils of such a system, and claiming that maintaining the status quo is far preferable. I will keep that in mind, next time I feel hungry, and still pass right by Olive Garden, and hold off so that I can go to some other place to spend my money instead.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/olive-garden-owner-hold-off-200230971.html;_ylt=A2KJ3CZ6ssFQFScAxMXQtDMD
Today, I would like to focus on paranoia on the domestic front.
There are some people that I personally know (not about to mention names or anything, but they certainly exist) who truly believe certain things to be true, although they are far from indisputable - and in many cases, far from credible.
One, for example, is that President Obama is already taking over with dictatorial powers.
Now, I have admitted in the past, and will readily admit presently, to not being the biggest fan of President Barack Obama. When his 2008 campaign seemed full of energy and promise and, yes, hope, for so many millions of Americans (and many millions of people outside American borders), he was viewed almost as if he possessed divine status. People seemed to think that the man could do no wrong.
But I'll admit to not being swept up in the thing. The first time that I voted was in 1992, and I had felt extremely excited that a Democrat actually had a chance to win the White House. Clinton had not been my first choice back then (Senator Tom Harkin was). Initially, it seemed like he was destined to get his ass kicked. After all, George H.W. Bush had enjoyed over 90% approval ratings, supposedly, a little more than a year earlier. He looked pretty strong early in 1992, and it was not all that clear that he would prove vulnerable. Plus, even when he did seem vulnerable enough to potentially lose the race, there was Ross Perot who surprised many and came out of seemingly nowhere to be a viable candidate, even perhaps favored.
Yet in one unbelievable week, Ross Perot dropped out of the race, right around the time of the Democratic National Convention. And anyone who saw Clinton in this past Democratic Convention, or knows how effective a speaker he can be, Clinton was amazing during a very successful Convention for the Democrats. They jumped ahead in the polls, and never looked back.
Still, this is not a blog about my own faith, but rather, my own disillusionment with politics. Needless to say, Clinton disappointed me. he was not what I had hoped he would be, or even thought he would be. I still voted for him again in 1996, because it was between him and Dole, and I thought that was an easy choice. But my enthusiasm was not nearly so strong.
Now, when Obama came around in 2008, I had long lost my belief in politicians, and particularly, of the two major parties. I had come to believe that neither party was actually interested in anything more than getting sponsors and seeking for more and more funding in order to win elections, so that they could remain viable and get more sponsors and seek more funding. My skepticism had grown considerably, and although he sounded great and seemed different, I still viewed him within the prism of a self-serving politician with a false sense of entitlement. I hoped that my admittedly harsh judgment was wrong, but the fact of the matter is that the past four years have proven this judgment right, harsh or not.
Like any politician, Obama did not keep his promises. He did not do many of the things that he promised to. Yet, that does not bother me so much, because a President is not all-powerful (nor should he, or someday she, be). Through little, and possibly no fault of his own, he was not the man who was able to bring the two parties together. However, Obama said he would protect the environment, and he did not. He claimed he would close Gitmo, and he did not. He had criticized his predecessor for endorsing torture, yet he kept that option open for future Presidents, as well as himself. He claimed that he would end the war in Iraq, yet he simply reduced the American forces there to 50,000 and simply stated it was no longer a war, while increasing American presence in Afghanistan. Finally, this is the President that signed the NDAA into law, although he expressed regret even while doing so.
When he first got into office, I was tentatively happy. After eight long years of Bush & Co., most Americans (and almost the entire rest of the world) seemed ready for something different. I was just glad he was not Bush, and hoped he might prove to be better my admittedly low expectations. But, he was not. In many regards, in fact, he has at times been alarmingly and inexcusably similar to his predecessor.
In short, he has not been the President that many had hoped he would be.
But is he a dictator?
True, he has assumed alarming levels of power, and essentially suspended habeas corpus with the flick of his pen.
Still, that does not warrant comparisons to Hitler or Nazi Germany. He finally succeeded where his predecessors (note the plural there) failed in passing through a fairer healthcare system - no small feat in the United States of America. To show just how difficult and extreme the opposition, look at how many were outraged by this, and remain outraged still. CEO's threatened to fire employees if Obama won this past election. Some Denny's raised their prices, and the owner of Olive Garden and Red Lobster expressed strong opposition to Obamacare by threatening reducing full-time workers to part-time. After sales took a hit, he backed off this plan, which if anything, should prove as yet another example of the power of the consumer in this extremely capitalist country of ours.
People seem to believe that this guy is truly on the verge of grabbing all sorts of powers, and all sorts of crazy conspiracy theories abound. He is about to abolish the right to bear arms. Obama is a secret Muslim, and he is about to convert all Americans to Islam. He is not a "real citizen" of the United States, the nation that he has been fairly elected President of - twice, now. Despite winning the election, a few thousand people in numerous states are hoping to secede from the Union, and despite being a tiny, tiny minority of the population, just look at how much press they get.
Now, again, I am not thrilled with Obama, and am less than impressed with his track record. Obviously, people were wrong in believing him to be almost like a divinity, and that he would come into office and fix America's problems with a wave of some magic political wand. Like Clinton said, no President would have been able to fix the problems in such a short time, because the problems were so extensive.
Yet, it seems like many conservatives must have been asleep for the previous eight years, because all of the problems that Obama was not able to fix were suddenly huge problems, although they not only existed, but were in fact caused, by Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush. Those conservative critics of Obama, who so loudly criticize this man to the point of demonizing him, seemed somehow silent prior to the election in 2008,l although that was precisely when these problems sprouted to begin with.
So, yes, I have my difference with Obama and his supporters, to say the least. And yes, these include abuses of power that I personally find absolutely inexcusable. However, I will not question his nationality, or slap a moustache on him, or claim that all of these enormous problems that the nation faces are his responsibility because they exist on his watch, as if the previous history of how they mushroomed simply were erased, or conveniently did not exist.
I do believe that it is the responsibility of an informed citizenry to keep strong pressure on their elected officials, because they are the public servants, not rulers for private interests. These are people hungry for power, and it would be irresponsible to simply let them have their way.
But to come out with such outrageous nonsense? Fine, you disagree with Obama, but to make it appear as if he has ordered troops to come knocking on your door as we speak, to take the guns away, and rag you off to some concentration camp?
Ridiculous.
I know not what course others may take, but as for me, I choose rationalism over paranoia.
Below is a link to an article all about the Red Lobster/Olive Garden thing. I rarely ate at either place, but I can tell you this much: so long as this man remains in charge of these places, I will actively seek to stay away from them. the one truly indisputable huge thing that I think Obama did right (although he did not go nearly far enough with it) was to bring a fairer, more affordable healthcare to Americans, and I don't want to hear any more about super rich people lecturing me, and all the others who helped these rich elites become rich elites, all about the evils of such a system, and claiming that maintaining the status quo is far preferable. I will keep that in mind, next time I feel hungry, and still pass right by Olive Garden, and hold off so that I can go to some other place to spend my money instead.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/olive-garden-owner-hold-off-200230971.html;_ylt=A2KJ3CZ6ssFQFScAxMXQtDMD
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Losing American Leadership
There is a famous saying that goes: "The more things change, the more they stay the same."
When changes seemed t be everywhere in evidence back in the late 1980's and early 1990's, it seemed to many Americans that the only place where things were not changing was right here. Now that the world is changing again, we are, once again, the bulwark of conservatism and continuity, although not necessarily in the positive sense.
Yesterday, there was an important vote on Capitol Hill. This is not unique.
The final vote had a majority in favor of the proposed bill, yet this bill did not pass, because it did not have the necessary degree of a majority to secure it's passage. This, too, is not unique.
The inability of Congress to effectively pass this proposed bill served as a great disappointment to many Americans, who vowed to continue the fight. This, as well, is not unique.
The proposed bill was defeated by what is frequently, and increasingly, being referred to as the politics of paranoia. This, unfortunately, is also not unique.
The bill was a United Nations treaty on rights for the handicapped, and it was defeated by five votes in the Senate. The measure had already been passed by 126 nations, but the United States refuses to be one of them, to join ranks with the rest of the world.
For the most part, the measure was defeated because of fears of the world organization that was pushing for it. Resistance to this bill was not that different than those who claimed that the United Nations was "taking over", because they had a few people in Texas observing our nation's election last month.
There has been a backlash recently against the United Nations, with many Americans voicing skepticism towards it, and desiring a pull out from the United Nations, which they seem to feel is about to take over the world, and particularly here in the United States.
It seems to me such a strange belief, but it is held by many who do believe in what has come to be known as "American exceptionalism".
The fact of the matter is this: that what has come to be known as "American exceptionalism" is tantamount to American dominance over the world. It is a pseudonym for American supremacy, and an extension of the largely discredited (although unfortunately, not totally discredited by enough Americans to no longer be relevant) neocon philosophy that got us into the war in Iraq, and would (and perhaps will) get us into other illegal and unjustifiable wars in the future. American exceptionalists hardly make a secret of their stated belief that the United States is the greatest nation in the world, and that it not only should do as it sees fit around the world, but that, moreover, it has a moral obligation to do so. Such thinking, if it leads to policy making, will surely have tragic consequences for the nation.
That paranoia of some vague, half-baked, notions of a United Nations takeover of the world has taken hold over many Americans who favor notions of exceptionalism, which itself would have it that the United States can do whatever the hell it wants, wherever the hell it wants, whenever the hell it wants. It is such an obviously unfair, cynical, and deceitful way of thinking, and it seems that you have to be an American these days not to see it that way.
Most Americans believe that Ronald Reagan was right in greatly increasing the military budget, in order to keep an enemy, the Soviet Union, in check, and to entice them to keep up with us in an arms race that eventually bankrupted them. They, too, were involved in a war in Afghanistan, a war that they did not win. A war that, according to many, proved the main impetus for the decline and fall of the Soviet Empire. That Reagan's supporters credit him with having "won the Cold War" was, according to them proof of the success of increased military expenditures.
Yet, even if we assume this to be entirely correct and truthful, it does not justify the increased military expenditures in the post-Cold War era. Military spending increased on the watch of Reagan's successor, President George H. W. Bush. It also increased during the tenure of George W. Bush, and that even before the September 11th attacks. Terrorism simply became the latest rationale to justify the increased military budget under the second Bush administration.
Once the policy of engaging in seemingly endless wars without proper cause, and with no clear exit strategies, became discredited, then perhaps another reason was needed to justify this militaristic mindset.
Seeing as though the United States still essentially stands alone as the world's leading superpower, then the weight of potential enemies has to be greatly exaggerated in order to justify the fixation on the already bloated military budget, supposedly to keep all of these enemies in check.
This latest popular argument, which seems to be gaining ground, that the United Nations poses such a huge and imminent threat, is really nothing new. It is the politics of fear, and it has existed before. But it is the level of power that these voices of paranoia have that is proving so costly.
The rest of the world is watching, whether we like it or not. It is watching us, as it watched a decade ago, when the United States aggressively pursued a war that it would eventually launch, against the world's wishes, and also against the United Nations, which was vehemently opposed to the war. The world watches us now, as it watched when we refused to attend the environmental conference in Rio in 1992, or refused to take part in the Kyoto accord. The world watched when internal opposition to a healthcare program- a program that would have at least begun to address the issue that far too many Americans have chosen to ignore or find excuses for, that being the tens of millions of people that are uninsured because they cannot afford it (to say nothing of those who actually have plans that still leave them uninsured in a very real sense, because medical care is far too costly, even for millions who have some health insurance that proves inadequate) - had those opponents slap the Hitler moustache on pictures of Obama.
We can claim that there are things about us that the rest of the world simply does not understand, and use this as an excuse for our collective political behavior. But sometimes the truth is simpler than we make it out to be. We muddy the waters unnecessarily, but these actions of ours are unjustifiable, and yes the world is watching. And judging us as harshly as we judge them.
Yes, the world is watching, and the world continues to watch. Increasingly, the world is taking initiative to move forward with, or increasingly without, the United States. Europe increasingly is it's own sphere of influence. China is a growing power as well. In Latin America, Several nations, most notably Brazil, have sought to join alliances with one another, as well as other nations throughout the world, to counter what they increasingly see as counterproductive American influence.
More and more, our political stance sees us on the outside of the world community, looking in, and perhaps scratching our heads. This happened with the vote for Palestine last week, when we were on the wrong side of a decisive vote in the United Nations. It has happened again yesterday, when we essentially voted to give that global community, and in effect, the rest of the world, the shaft, and once again, to go our own way.
Our paternalistic approach to the rest of the world tends to rub people the wrong way, and really, how could it not? The global community accepted American leadership for decades and decades, particularly following World War II. There was always a political divide that existed, but as time goes by, these difference are not only growing increasingly glaring, but increasingly polarizing, as well. Why? Because the rest of the world understands what most Americans do not. They know only too well what American exceptionalism truly means: that America will always seek to be the exception to every rule, so that it alone may seek to benefit from exemption to the rules that the rest of the world has to abide by. the price that we have already paid is quite high, yet it will likely only get higher. This is because the global community is no longer waiting for us to provide leadership, or even to comer around to see their side of things, anymore. If we are to be an obstacle towards progress, as we seem intent on being too often, than the rest of the world will do what they must to overcome that obstacle. We see them at work doing it already. That is why it so often seems that the rest of the world is changing rapidly, while here in the United States, nothing ever seems to change. This is an illusion, of course. But it provides the delusion for millions of Americans who believe that we can continue to do what we have always done.
With our every move, the rest of the world watches, and judges. More and more, the rest of the world sees how we pat ourselves in the back as the "world's superpower", and our proclamations of being the leading power "in the free world", and our claims of being "the shining city on the hill", and they are rejecting these self-serving and overly righteous boasts. To many in the rest of the world, America is a politically irresponsible place where leadership is lacking, even if we want to believe that we are, in fact, what the rest of the world should be.
"We Americans have no commission from God to police the world."
~ President Benjamin Harrison
"We are citizens of the world; and the tragedy of our times is that we do not know this."
~ President Woodrow Wilson
Here is a link to an article that I used in the writing of this piece:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/12/05/2527066/disabling-vote-on-rights-of-disabled.html
When changes seemed t be everywhere in evidence back in the late 1980's and early 1990's, it seemed to many Americans that the only place where things were not changing was right here. Now that the world is changing again, we are, once again, the bulwark of conservatism and continuity, although not necessarily in the positive sense.
Yesterday, there was an important vote on Capitol Hill. This is not unique.
The final vote had a majority in favor of the proposed bill, yet this bill did not pass, because it did not have the necessary degree of a majority to secure it's passage. This, too, is not unique.
The inability of Congress to effectively pass this proposed bill served as a great disappointment to many Americans, who vowed to continue the fight. This, as well, is not unique.
The proposed bill was defeated by what is frequently, and increasingly, being referred to as the politics of paranoia. This, unfortunately, is also not unique.
The bill was a United Nations treaty on rights for the handicapped, and it was defeated by five votes in the Senate. The measure had already been passed by 126 nations, but the United States refuses to be one of them, to join ranks with the rest of the world.
For the most part, the measure was defeated because of fears of the world organization that was pushing for it. Resistance to this bill was not that different than those who claimed that the United Nations was "taking over", because they had a few people in Texas observing our nation's election last month.
There has been a backlash recently against the United Nations, with many Americans voicing skepticism towards it, and desiring a pull out from the United Nations, which they seem to feel is about to take over the world, and particularly here in the United States.
It seems to me such a strange belief, but it is held by many who do believe in what has come to be known as "American exceptionalism".
The fact of the matter is this: that what has come to be known as "American exceptionalism" is tantamount to American dominance over the world. It is a pseudonym for American supremacy, and an extension of the largely discredited (although unfortunately, not totally discredited by enough Americans to no longer be relevant) neocon philosophy that got us into the war in Iraq, and would (and perhaps will) get us into other illegal and unjustifiable wars in the future. American exceptionalists hardly make a secret of their stated belief that the United States is the greatest nation in the world, and that it not only should do as it sees fit around the world, but that, moreover, it has a moral obligation to do so. Such thinking, if it leads to policy making, will surely have tragic consequences for the nation.
That paranoia of some vague, half-baked, notions of a United Nations takeover of the world has taken hold over many Americans who favor notions of exceptionalism, which itself would have it that the United States can do whatever the hell it wants, wherever the hell it wants, whenever the hell it wants. It is such an obviously unfair, cynical, and deceitful way of thinking, and it seems that you have to be an American these days not to see it that way.
Most Americans believe that Ronald Reagan was right in greatly increasing the military budget, in order to keep an enemy, the Soviet Union, in check, and to entice them to keep up with us in an arms race that eventually bankrupted them. They, too, were involved in a war in Afghanistan, a war that they did not win. A war that, according to many, proved the main impetus for the decline and fall of the Soviet Empire. That Reagan's supporters credit him with having "won the Cold War" was, according to them proof of the success of increased military expenditures.
Yet, even if we assume this to be entirely correct and truthful, it does not justify the increased military expenditures in the post-Cold War era. Military spending increased on the watch of Reagan's successor, President George H. W. Bush. It also increased during the tenure of George W. Bush, and that even before the September 11th attacks. Terrorism simply became the latest rationale to justify the increased military budget under the second Bush administration.
Once the policy of engaging in seemingly endless wars without proper cause, and with no clear exit strategies, became discredited, then perhaps another reason was needed to justify this militaristic mindset.
Seeing as though the United States still essentially stands alone as the world's leading superpower, then the weight of potential enemies has to be greatly exaggerated in order to justify the fixation on the already bloated military budget, supposedly to keep all of these enemies in check.
This latest popular argument, which seems to be gaining ground, that the United Nations poses such a huge and imminent threat, is really nothing new. It is the politics of fear, and it has existed before. But it is the level of power that these voices of paranoia have that is proving so costly.
The rest of the world is watching, whether we like it or not. It is watching us, as it watched a decade ago, when the United States aggressively pursued a war that it would eventually launch, against the world's wishes, and also against the United Nations, which was vehemently opposed to the war. The world watches us now, as it watched when we refused to attend the environmental conference in Rio in 1992, or refused to take part in the Kyoto accord. The world watched when internal opposition to a healthcare program- a program that would have at least begun to address the issue that far too many Americans have chosen to ignore or find excuses for, that being the tens of millions of people that are uninsured because they cannot afford it (to say nothing of those who actually have plans that still leave them uninsured in a very real sense, because medical care is far too costly, even for millions who have some health insurance that proves inadequate) - had those opponents slap the Hitler moustache on pictures of Obama.
We can claim that there are things about us that the rest of the world simply does not understand, and use this as an excuse for our collective political behavior. But sometimes the truth is simpler than we make it out to be. We muddy the waters unnecessarily, but these actions of ours are unjustifiable, and yes the world is watching. And judging us as harshly as we judge them.
Yes, the world is watching, and the world continues to watch. Increasingly, the world is taking initiative to move forward with, or increasingly without, the United States. Europe increasingly is it's own sphere of influence. China is a growing power as well. In Latin America, Several nations, most notably Brazil, have sought to join alliances with one another, as well as other nations throughout the world, to counter what they increasingly see as counterproductive American influence.
More and more, our political stance sees us on the outside of the world community, looking in, and perhaps scratching our heads. This happened with the vote for Palestine last week, when we were on the wrong side of a decisive vote in the United Nations. It has happened again yesterday, when we essentially voted to give that global community, and in effect, the rest of the world, the shaft, and once again, to go our own way.
Our paternalistic approach to the rest of the world tends to rub people the wrong way, and really, how could it not? The global community accepted American leadership for decades and decades, particularly following World War II. There was always a political divide that existed, but as time goes by, these difference are not only growing increasingly glaring, but increasingly polarizing, as well. Why? Because the rest of the world understands what most Americans do not. They know only too well what American exceptionalism truly means: that America will always seek to be the exception to every rule, so that it alone may seek to benefit from exemption to the rules that the rest of the world has to abide by. the price that we have already paid is quite high, yet it will likely only get higher. This is because the global community is no longer waiting for us to provide leadership, or even to comer around to see their side of things, anymore. If we are to be an obstacle towards progress, as we seem intent on being too often, than the rest of the world will do what they must to overcome that obstacle. We see them at work doing it already. That is why it so often seems that the rest of the world is changing rapidly, while here in the United States, nothing ever seems to change. This is an illusion, of course. But it provides the delusion for millions of Americans who believe that we can continue to do what we have always done.
With our every move, the rest of the world watches, and judges. More and more, the rest of the world sees how we pat ourselves in the back as the "world's superpower", and our proclamations of being the leading power "in the free world", and our claims of being "the shining city on the hill", and they are rejecting these self-serving and overly righteous boasts. To many in the rest of the world, America is a politically irresponsible place where leadership is lacking, even if we want to believe that we are, in fact, what the rest of the world should be.
"We Americans have no commission from God to police the world."
~ President Benjamin Harrison
"We are citizens of the world; and the tragedy of our times is that we do not know this."
~ President Woodrow Wilson
Here is a link to an article that I used in the writing of this piece:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/12/05/2527066/disabling-vote-on-rights-of-disabled.html
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
The Ongoing Saga of NHL Hockey
There will be a resumption of talks between the parties in the ongoing NHL lockout today.
There were talks yesterday as well, and these lasted over ten hours, evidently.
I have continually heard that the issues are more complex than the one issue that most people truly feel is at the heart of the matter: greed.
True, there may be specifics, but it seems more than likely that, when you scrape away the details, the heart of the matter will indeed be greed.
As I understand it, one of the major issues that has yet to be ironed out is the long term security for profitable hockey in markets that are not traditional hockey markets. That would be particularly true in regions that have relatively recently acquired hockey teams - namely, the South.
Anyone who knows me, or has kept up with this blog over the months and years, knows that I have been very critical of this Southern expansion program for the NHL. Many hockey officials, particularly Gary Bettman, have stuck doggedly to it, and hail those successes, which are tantamount to proving the exception as the rule.
In truth, it has failed, and if indeed one of the major underlying issues in this lockout are the concerns that these "markets" are, in fact, not that marketable, than it further illustrates the folly of the NHL as a whole over the past two decades and change.
Now, let me be clear here: I don't blame the NHL for trying to expand to new markets. After all, why remain restricted to traditional markets? Why not try to expand the interest in hockey to areas that, at least in theory, could prove to be accepting of this traditionally cold weather sport? Why not venture forth and give it a shot? I am not opposed to that.
No, it makes sense - at least in theory. That is not where the NHL went wrong.
Where it went wrong was in showing such an easy and unthinking willingness to sacrifice the loyalty in traditional markets, in order to make this experimental expansion policy work. Where it continues to go wrong is in it's dogged refusal to accept defeat, and to give up this plan, in favor of restoring faith among loyal followers of their beloved NHL franchises. Where it has remained wrong, and continues to remain wrong, is in the willingness of NHL officials, and owners of NHL franchises, to make the fans pay for the mistakes of NHL owners and NHL officials, and the seemingly growing limits to cap the popularity of the sport and the league that are in evidence all over the place, if one is honest enough to look and admit it.
Yes, the fans are paying for their loyalty. At least, that is what it has appeared as to many fans, myself included (whether or not NHL officials will outright agree to that or not is irrelevant). Ask fans of the Minnesota Northstars (although they now have the Wild to root for). Ask fans of the Winnipeg Jets (although Winnipeg has the Jets back). Ask fans of the Hartford Whalers and the Quebec Nordiques. Ask fans of teams that are continually threatened and have seemed on the verge of a move elsewhere (almost always much further south) in Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa, and Buffalo.
The fact of the matter is that this strategy of expansion backfired precisely because the league seemed so intent on it's success that it at least appeared willing to sacrifice it's own popularity in traditional markets. This current lockout is proof of that failure, and anyone who would try to minimize, or perhaps even deny, that the current situation obviously illustrates a failure by the league is only fooling themselves.
I have been speaking to a huge fan of the sport (admittedly, probably a bigger fan than me) for several months regarding this situation. He is, or was, a fan of the Rangers, and his second team would be none other than the reigning Stanley Cup champion Los Angeles Kings. I remember in October, he was saying that he half expected, and very much hoped, that a deal could be reached around Thanksgiving, so that hockey could resume by the holiday season. That, of course, did not happen.
But he also expressed rather extreme skepticism that this situation would resolve itself this season, and even warned me to prepare for this situation to continue on to next season. He gives voice to his belief that this season, according to him, "is over", before it ever even began. He believes that there is virtually no chance that a season will be salvaged, however shortened. Now, hopefully, he is not proven right. There should be limits to this, after all. But then again, the NHL has not shown a strong adherence to limits in the recent past, and one even wonders if they know the meaning of limits. Three significant stoppages of play that eliminated at least huge chinks of three different seasons (including one season entire in 2004-2005) show that the NHL really knows no bounds, and that this is what is hurting them.
I would like to believe he is wrong, and he would like to believe he is wrong on this, as well.
But the NHL seems to be intent in proving him, and other skeptical fans such as myself, that they are right in their skepticism. That the NHL was a bad place to invest their faith in, and appreciation of a sport. I have given voice to this belief of mine before, and I will say it again: fans of the NHL (and most likely, any sport) watch the games and take interest not because it is a business, but because it helps them to forget the world of business. The NHL's stance of "business as usual" has hurt it's popularity, and compromised what once seemed a promising future for it, and mostly, that is because it has not allowed fans to simply enjoy watching games, and rooting for their teams.
Instead of providing an escape for fans of NHL hockey, it has served as a reminder of the stress that the business world often provides people.
And without going too far in specific examples of the failure of the Southern expansion program, and particularly in the league's seeming willingness to sacrifice it's own popularity in traditional markets in order to make this experiment work, the possibility that this lockout continues largely because of concerns over the long term feasibility of non-traditional hockey markets is only the latest of a long line of proofs that this policy has failed, and should be scrapped.
If the NHL wants to expand, then fine. But not at the expense of the very fans that helped make the NHL what it is. This has proven to be the greatest failure of the NHL, officials and owners alike. The NHL will continue to compromise itself until it reverses this trend, or until it manages to take itself out of existence. That seemed an impossible scenario not every long ago (and it might seem all that realistic presently, either), but the league appears intent on keeping that as a distinct (if unlikely) possibility, which will seem more realistic if they, indeed, cancel yet another season entire.
The choice is theirs. Apparently, we fans have nothing to do with it, and the league continually reminds us of that every chance that they get.
The league boasted that attendance and popularity went up after the cancellation of the entire 2004-05 season. That may be true on some level, but what the league is not saying is that it had to go to considerable lengths to assure this possibility, such as huge discounts on tickets, in order to promote attendance that was expected to sag.
If the league cancels this entire season, or even if they do not, there will be a lot of fans who will choose not to attend, or perhaps even watch, NHL games anymore.
I used to go to a lot of games back in the nineties and early 2000's. It took years after that cancelled season of 04-05 for me to go back to a game (it was 2008). When play is resumed (always assuming that it, in fact, is resumed), it might take me a bit longer to get back into NHL hockey, if at all. I am sure I will take interest as a fan, eventually. But the NHL apparently is willing to test the loyalty of it's fans (and not just in the markets that either lost their teams, or where the threat to lose it's teams loomed large), and I expect it will pay a very steep price for it's trademark indifference to these once loyal fans this time. If it does, there will be no one left to blame or point fingers at but themselves.
Earlier in this blog, I mentioned that the major issue for the failure of the current lockout would be greed. But I can think of another that is related, and which both the NHL and it's commissioner have a prety long and proven track record of: arrogance. It has made a mockery out of a serious sport, and the league has not shown a willingness to learn from the past. This will cost them, and perhaps this time, it cost them dearly indeed.
There were talks yesterday as well, and these lasted over ten hours, evidently.
I have continually heard that the issues are more complex than the one issue that most people truly feel is at the heart of the matter: greed.
True, there may be specifics, but it seems more than likely that, when you scrape away the details, the heart of the matter will indeed be greed.
As I understand it, one of the major issues that has yet to be ironed out is the long term security for profitable hockey in markets that are not traditional hockey markets. That would be particularly true in regions that have relatively recently acquired hockey teams - namely, the South.
Anyone who knows me, or has kept up with this blog over the months and years, knows that I have been very critical of this Southern expansion program for the NHL. Many hockey officials, particularly Gary Bettman, have stuck doggedly to it, and hail those successes, which are tantamount to proving the exception as the rule.
In truth, it has failed, and if indeed one of the major underlying issues in this lockout are the concerns that these "markets" are, in fact, not that marketable, than it further illustrates the folly of the NHL as a whole over the past two decades and change.
Now, let me be clear here: I don't blame the NHL for trying to expand to new markets. After all, why remain restricted to traditional markets? Why not try to expand the interest in hockey to areas that, at least in theory, could prove to be accepting of this traditionally cold weather sport? Why not venture forth and give it a shot? I am not opposed to that.
No, it makes sense - at least in theory. That is not where the NHL went wrong.
Where it went wrong was in showing such an easy and unthinking willingness to sacrifice the loyalty in traditional markets, in order to make this experimental expansion policy work. Where it continues to go wrong is in it's dogged refusal to accept defeat, and to give up this plan, in favor of restoring faith among loyal followers of their beloved NHL franchises. Where it has remained wrong, and continues to remain wrong, is in the willingness of NHL officials, and owners of NHL franchises, to make the fans pay for the mistakes of NHL owners and NHL officials, and the seemingly growing limits to cap the popularity of the sport and the league that are in evidence all over the place, if one is honest enough to look and admit it.
Yes, the fans are paying for their loyalty. At least, that is what it has appeared as to many fans, myself included (whether or not NHL officials will outright agree to that or not is irrelevant). Ask fans of the Minnesota Northstars (although they now have the Wild to root for). Ask fans of the Winnipeg Jets (although Winnipeg has the Jets back). Ask fans of the Hartford Whalers and the Quebec Nordiques. Ask fans of teams that are continually threatened and have seemed on the verge of a move elsewhere (almost always much further south) in Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa, and Buffalo.
The fact of the matter is that this strategy of expansion backfired precisely because the league seemed so intent on it's success that it at least appeared willing to sacrifice it's own popularity in traditional markets. This current lockout is proof of that failure, and anyone who would try to minimize, or perhaps even deny, that the current situation obviously illustrates a failure by the league is only fooling themselves.
I have been speaking to a huge fan of the sport (admittedly, probably a bigger fan than me) for several months regarding this situation. He is, or was, a fan of the Rangers, and his second team would be none other than the reigning Stanley Cup champion Los Angeles Kings. I remember in October, he was saying that he half expected, and very much hoped, that a deal could be reached around Thanksgiving, so that hockey could resume by the holiday season. That, of course, did not happen.
But he also expressed rather extreme skepticism that this situation would resolve itself this season, and even warned me to prepare for this situation to continue on to next season. He gives voice to his belief that this season, according to him, "is over", before it ever even began. He believes that there is virtually no chance that a season will be salvaged, however shortened. Now, hopefully, he is not proven right. There should be limits to this, after all. But then again, the NHL has not shown a strong adherence to limits in the recent past, and one even wonders if they know the meaning of limits. Three significant stoppages of play that eliminated at least huge chinks of three different seasons (including one season entire in 2004-2005) show that the NHL really knows no bounds, and that this is what is hurting them.
I would like to believe he is wrong, and he would like to believe he is wrong on this, as well.
But the NHL seems to be intent in proving him, and other skeptical fans such as myself, that they are right in their skepticism. That the NHL was a bad place to invest their faith in, and appreciation of a sport. I have given voice to this belief of mine before, and I will say it again: fans of the NHL (and most likely, any sport) watch the games and take interest not because it is a business, but because it helps them to forget the world of business. The NHL's stance of "business as usual" has hurt it's popularity, and compromised what once seemed a promising future for it, and mostly, that is because it has not allowed fans to simply enjoy watching games, and rooting for their teams.
Instead of providing an escape for fans of NHL hockey, it has served as a reminder of the stress that the business world often provides people.
And without going too far in specific examples of the failure of the Southern expansion program, and particularly in the league's seeming willingness to sacrifice it's own popularity in traditional markets in order to make this experiment work, the possibility that this lockout continues largely because of concerns over the long term feasibility of non-traditional hockey markets is only the latest of a long line of proofs that this policy has failed, and should be scrapped.
If the NHL wants to expand, then fine. But not at the expense of the very fans that helped make the NHL what it is. This has proven to be the greatest failure of the NHL, officials and owners alike. The NHL will continue to compromise itself until it reverses this trend, or until it manages to take itself out of existence. That seemed an impossible scenario not every long ago (and it might seem all that realistic presently, either), but the league appears intent on keeping that as a distinct (if unlikely) possibility, which will seem more realistic if they, indeed, cancel yet another season entire.
The choice is theirs. Apparently, we fans have nothing to do with it, and the league continually reminds us of that every chance that they get.
The league boasted that attendance and popularity went up after the cancellation of the entire 2004-05 season. That may be true on some level, but what the league is not saying is that it had to go to considerable lengths to assure this possibility, such as huge discounts on tickets, in order to promote attendance that was expected to sag.
If the league cancels this entire season, or even if they do not, there will be a lot of fans who will choose not to attend, or perhaps even watch, NHL games anymore.
I used to go to a lot of games back in the nineties and early 2000's. It took years after that cancelled season of 04-05 for me to go back to a game (it was 2008). When play is resumed (always assuming that it, in fact, is resumed), it might take me a bit longer to get back into NHL hockey, if at all. I am sure I will take interest as a fan, eventually. But the NHL apparently is willing to test the loyalty of it's fans (and not just in the markets that either lost their teams, or where the threat to lose it's teams loomed large), and I expect it will pay a very steep price for it's trademark indifference to these once loyal fans this time. If it does, there will be no one left to blame or point fingers at but themselves.
Earlier in this blog, I mentioned that the major issue for the failure of the current lockout would be greed. But I can think of another that is related, and which both the NHL and it's commissioner have a prety long and proven track record of: arrogance. It has made a mockery out of a serious sport, and the league has not shown a willingness to learn from the past. This will cost them, and perhaps this time, it cost them dearly indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)