|
|
|
I'm a little freaked out right now, because it's officially been one whole month that I have lived without internet access. Oh sure, I've popped in on other people's networks every so often, but never got desperate enough to hit up a coffee shop or whatever and connect publicly - that is still a little too creepy for me. But about fifteen minutes ago I finally got internet access at my new pad, and am now revisiting all that I've missed. Amazingly, despite being online for just over a quarter of an hour, I haven't looked at one amateur porn site. It turns out there are lots of other things that you can do on the internet.
But I'm going to get in on that later. There is much to blog about from my disconnected month, but the most important thing is this:
WORD PIRATES READING
THURSDAY, MAY 15th
7:30 p.m.
AT THE PHOENIX THEATER
IN PETALUMA, CA
That's right - the Word Pirates are holding our second annual reading. Last year was a blast and this year promises to be much, much better. Marcia and Joy have been breaking their backs to put this thing together, and thus it's guaranteed to be a hoot. Here's the official info:
Petaluma, Calif., May 15 – Word Pirates, a professional writing group, will host its second annual reading on May 15. True to their name, the Word Pirates will commandeer the Phoenix Theater to tell tales that could rouse a dead man.
Last year’s standing-room-only reading featured local artists, gripping stories, and a surprise pirate duel. This year’s event will be even better. Doors will open at 7:30 p.m., with pirate-themed appetizers, grog, and surprise entertainment. Then the Word Pirates will read original pieces created in the group during the last year. This event is free and all are welcome. Peg legs and parrots must be checked at the door.
Word Pirates Reading
Date: Thursday, May 15
Time: 7:30 p.m.
Place: The Phoenix Theater – 201 Washington St., Petaluma
Cost: Free (donations welcomed)
Reading at the Event: Robin Cadogan, Noelani Price, Morgan Elliott, Joy Lanzendorfer, Ross Lockhart, and Marcia Simmons.
For more information, visit www.wordpirates.org, e-mail wordpirates@gmail.com, or call 707-782-0971. Arrr!
|
|
|
|
| Posted by Grogged at | | | |
|
The crowd had thinned dramatically from last week. Before there were many, but tonight there was only two. I think this fit our instructor much better than the motley assemblage from the Monday prior. Trent and I were the brave souls who flicked our noses as gravity and dared return for more confusing instructions on how to skate on ice.
Our instructor was late, apparently one of those people who wait until the last minute to file taxes (I did mine in early February, as always), or so she explained. Although ten minutes of tardiness is generally not that big a deal, when it comes to a half-hour lesson, time is slightly more of the essence. The kid giving hockey skating lessons attempted to cover, but he was teaching crossovers and was cognizant that this manner of maneuvering about the ice was light years past our rink prowess. He asked what we covered last week, and I gave him a brief description, after which he cringed and shook his head slowly.
Once we were successfully united with our instructor, she had us repeat some of the more basic tasks from last week, which went fairly well. If nothing else, we remained vertical.
The breakthrough moment of the lesson came close to the end, when, clearly satisfied with our "progress," our instructor thought that perhaps teaching Trent & I crossovers would be worthwhile. A crossover is when one puts one skate over the other to turn at an incredibly high velocity. As she explained and skated an example, I merely put my hand up and said "no." It took her a little by surprise, but thankfully she relented. She never broached the subject of spins and jumps (unlike last week), and finally sent us skating around the face-off circle in the corner of the rink.
All in all, this was a much more enjoyable lesson. I've got two weeks under my belt. Can't stop now. Maybe next week I'll offer her a deal - she can teach me crossovers if I can bring my hockey stick.
|
|
|
|
| Posted by Grogged at | | | |
|
I needed something to cheer me up from watching the Sharks disintigrate tonight. Fortunately, I had a stack of letters on my desk received the other day from the Department of Motor Vehicles.
On Super Bowl Sunday I was in a car crash. I was the middle car of three. I hit someone and then someone hit me. Nobody was hurt, so it wasn't that big a deal. It was something for the insurance companies to gripe over, and that was that.
However, a couple of weeks ago I received a letter from the DMV stating that neither I nor my insurance company had not filed the accident with them. They sent me a form which I promptly filled out and returned. Again, no big deal.
Then, in a letter dated April 1st, I learned that my driver's license would be suspended effective May 1st. The reason, as stated in the letter, was that I had not reported the accident to the DMV. A seperate letter, also dated April 1st, explained that my license suspension would be lifted on May 1st because it turned out that I had filed the appropriate paperwork, but would again be suspended on that same day because I didn't appear to have proper insurance (I do).
Finally, a third letter came dated April 2nd, with the following message:
"The action(s) taken against your driving privilege is set aside (cancelled) effective May 01, 2008.
You may keep your present license."
So to summarize, on May 1st, my driver's license will be suspended, and then reinstated simultaneously, and I should ignore this because according to the DMV, it won't happen. My question is, why tell me about this? The events will negate themselves, and therefore will not happen. Beyond that, in the final letter I was informed that should anyone inquire as to whether my license has ever been suspended, the answer will be a definitive "no."
Basically, the government sent me three letters to inform me that nothing will happen. If you ever wanted to know where our tax dollars go...
Imagine the paperwork if something really was going to happen. |
|
|
|
| Posted by Grogged at | | | |
|
There are some big Eves during the year. Christmas and New Years come to mind. While those are nice, in my circles, tonight is the most important eve of all: NHL Playoff Eve. For me, it's time to reflect on the hockey season that was, and then prognosticate about the shorter, much more brutal playoff season forthcoming. So, dear readers, I give you my predictions for the 2008 NHL playoffs.
Oh, and I don't bitch out and pick round by round like the paid analysts on ESPN and whatnot - these are my predictions and I'm sticking to them. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
One more thing. Last year I was a perfect eight for eight in the first round. I accurately predicted three of the four conference finalists, but sadly, did not accurately pick who would win those series. Still, I wasn't bad.
Like '07, I'll start out in the Eastern Conference.
Montreal vs. Boston: Montreal has knocked Boston out of the playoffs the last three times these teams have met, and this year will be no different. Boston deserves kudos for scratching their way into the postseason, but with Marc Savard gimpy, they will succumb to the superior firepower of the Canadiens. Montreal in five games.
Pittsburgh vs. Ottawa: Ottawa completes their season-long free fall from a 13-1 start against the Penguins. The Senators are missing captain (and best player) Daniel Alfredsson due to injury. They have veterans and playoff experience as a team, but they don't have Sidney Crosby or Evgeni Malkin. Pittsburgh does, and they will vanquish the Ottawa Senators in six games.
Washington vs. Philadelphia: Philadelphia should feel proud of the enormous turnaround from last year's disastrous season. However, the Flyers have the grave misfortune of catching a Washington team that is absolutely on a tear. Washington made brilliant moves at the trade deadline and have shown in the last few weeks that they can dig their way out of holes. This series will go the distance, but the Capitals take it seven games.
New Jersey vs. New York Rangers: The Rangers were a trendy pre-season pick to win the Stanley Cup, and for very good reason. They have Jaromir Jagr, who despite putting up (comparatively) tepid numbers, is still fully capable of taking over not just a game, but a whole series. Beyond that, they have Chris Drury, and there is nobody on the planet that you want on the ice in the last ten seconds of a playoff game than him. New Jersey counters with the best goaltender in the history of the NHL, but that's about it. Brodeur can't do it all (though he has in the past), and thus the Rangers will win this one in seven games.
That means that in the second round, New York will head north to face top seeded Montreal. I still like the Rangers, but Montreal has the ability to score a lot of goals very quickly. New York will have to play gritty (they are capable) to keep up the pace. Another hard fought series, but Montreal prevails in six games.
Pittsburgh versus Washington is the dream matchup that the NHL has been salivating over ever since Crosby and Alexander Ovechkin started putting up ludicrous statistics as young boys. Now they are young men, and with the Great Eight likely as this years league MVP, expect to see plenty of highlight reel goals. Unfortunately, the Capitals dynamic run will end against the Penguins, and it will end swiftly. Washington is a one-trick pony, but Pittsburgh is a near complete team. Pittsburgh ends the series in five games.
So that leaves Montreal against Pittsburgh in the Eastern Conference final. Usually at this point in the playoffs, goaltending is the most important aspect of the game. It won't be in this series. Expect to see a lot of red lights spinning behind each net, but in the end, the well-balanced Montreal attack will return the Habs to the Stanley Cup finals for the first time since 1993. Crosby and Malkin are still a year or two away from their inevitable hoisting of the cup. This year, however, Montreal sends the Penguins home in six games.
Now, I go after the Western Conference:
Top seeded Detroit and the Nashville Predators usually play spirited and close games, and at least two of the games in this series will indeed be close. Nashville won't win any of them, though. The Red Wings are too good. Nashville's season ends in the first round of the playoffs again, only I don't see them winning a game. Detroit in a four game sweep.
New Jersey against New York will probably be the best first round series, but keeping up pace will be the matchup between the San Jose Sharks and the Calgary Flames. Calgary exploited San Jose's vulnerability for giving up last-minute goals twice this season, and each time the Flames went on to win in overtime. Expect that to happen at least once in this round, but unlike previous seasons, the Sharks will not break. Not only are they incredibly good, but the Sharks have remarkable depth. Calgary will be a tremendous test, but the Sharks will pass in seven games.
Minnesota won a dramatic horserace to win their division, but the reward they got was the Colorado Avalanche. Even in off years, Colorado is terrifying come April hockey. At the trade deadline the Avs reassembled most of their Stanley Cup winning franchise from a decade ago, and that was more than enough to push them into the playoffs. But it isn't who Colorado did get that will be the story, but rather what key components from that championship team they are missing. No Patrick Roy (retired and teaching is goalie son how to properly maim) and Chris Drury. Plus, the best players on Colorado are getting AARP invitations. Minnesota wins in six, but it'll be a lot closer than that.
Anaheim will bloody Dallas. Dallas will bloody Anaheim. This series all boils down to which team has more chippy bitches, and Anaheim will prevail. They are dirty, relentless, and have Scott Neidermeyer, who has won four Stanley Cups. That'll be enough to eradicate the Stars in six games.
That pits the defending Stanley Cup champions against the current President's Trophy winners in the second round, and while Anaheim spends their time chasing after the Wings with scissors in hands, Detroit flies high. Anaheim finished the regular season strong, but they simply aren't as good overall as Detroit. The Ducks will find ways to win two games, but Detroit will win four and advance to the third round.
The San Jose / Minnesota series will mirror the 2 vs. 3 matchup in the east. Pat the Wild franchise on the back for winning the division and escaping the first round against the Avs, but the Sharks are more skilled on every front. At best, Gaborik and Rolston steal a game for Minnesota, but I think this series will also end in four games.
Thus, a rematch of last year's second round is set between the Detroit Red Wings and the San Jose Sharks. Last year the Sharks balloon was popped with half a minute left in game four, when Robert Lang scored to tie the game, and the Wings evened the series in overtime. They won the next two and eliminated the Sharks. Lightning will not strike twice. For starters, Lang no longer plays with the Red Wings, but more importantly, this is a San Jose team that has finally learned to deal with adversity. They were written off as overrated and underachievers for the first three quarters of the season, then didn't lose for the next quarter, save the last two games, which were meaningless. San Jose lifted a lot of monkeys off their shoulders this season, and the biggest monkey is Detroit, which they will set free in seven games.
So for the grand finale of the NHL playoffs, it will once again be Canada versus a sun belt team, and for the fourth straight season, the Stanley Cup will reside in the warmer climate for a year. Instead of breaking down the series, I'm just going to insert a youtube clip from when San Jose and Montreal met up last month (which I blogged about). Expect the whole series to go just like this game, but in the end, San Jose has a better goalie, and that will be the difference. Sharks in seven games.
|
|
|
|
| Posted by Grogged at | | | |
|
We've been swearing to ourselves for a while now (months? years?) that we would take ice skating lessons. After all, Santa Rosa is home to Snoopy Ice Arena, where the great adult tournament takes place each year. Teams of all ages, up to and including septugenarian squads, lace them up and hack a puck around the ice at all hours of the night. Last year I watched my pop's team take the bronze medal in their group, which was awarded on ice to a team representative that the announcer referred to "this drunk guy here." This took place after I guided my stepdad to the local 7-11 for copious amounts of post-game beer. For my bold leadership in the "beer run," I was awarded a bronze medal as well. The medal remains among my most coveted possessions. With all this in mind, Snoopy seemed like the perfect place to take up skating once more.
Because I was born in Canada, I had the natural advantage over my friends of having worn ice skates before. This does not mean I am anything above competetant at ice skating, but at least I didn't need to grip the side boards for balance. Others did, and hence, we all set out to get "beginner" lessons. I can't imagine encountering beginner skaters is all too uncommon in California, where the local sports media still has yet to notice that there is a professional ice hockey franchise just an hour south of where the Oakland Raiders play. (Oh sure, there's a lot of hoopla about the Giants and A's right now, but that'll blow over once the NFL teams start doing light workouts in the early summer months). Regardless of media attention, this is California, and ice comes in either crushed or cube form around here. Well-trained skaters are not that common.
Thus, it came as quite a shock to me that our ice skating instructor seemed genuinely baffled and annoyed that there were novices out on the rink tonight. We were hidden in a corner of the ice, and I'm certain that if someone could have put up a large curtain to shield us from the "real" skaters, the barrier would have arisen.
Then came the lessons themselves. At first we were advised on the basics - how to balance, how to propel ourselves forward, and how to stop. We were given one shot at each of those skills before the lessons switched to backwards skating, pinpoint turning and finally three-point spinning (the tracks from your skates make a perfect number 3 on the ice).
For those who have never skated before, the final skill is something one might consider teaching another after a year of intense, daily lessons; certainly not after twenty-five minutes of ice time. To put this in perspective, that was like throwing a geometry proof at a kindergartener who had only minutes before learned that 0+0 = 0.
When one of us beginners, who was still clinging to the boards for dear life at the time, threw out the statement, "I'm still having problems balancing on skates," our instructor was clearly perturbed. She suggested that perhaps we would best be served looking up the answers to our troubles online. Maybe I'm a petulant student, but it seems to me that the best place to learn how to ice skate is on a sheet of ice while wearing ice skates.
Then again, what do I know? I'm just a rookie. |
|
|
|
| Posted by Grogged at | | | |
|
Maybe once or twice a year I'll invest a little attention into the world of basketball. Back when I was but a sprout, I loved this sport. It was so simple. Basketball followed the same concept as hockey, only the goal was slightly smaller, somewhat higher off the ground, totally unguarded, and nobody hit me with a stick during the game. Also, there was no ice involved, as my skating skills never fully developed despite my Canadian heritage.
However, as I wandered into the landscape of adulthood, I became disillusioned with the sport of basketball. The sporting simplicity that attracted me as a child insulted me as an adult. There'd be a hundred goals a game in hockey if there were no goaltender - that's the challenge of the sport. Here you bash your way through five men getting paid a million or so dollars a year to club you with weapons, and if you get free and clear of them, you're faced with another player (called a goalie) who has a BIGGER stick and enough padding to turn away everything but a nuclear attack. If you manage to get the tiny piece of rubber known to hockey afficianados as a "puck" past that guy and into the net (granted, slightly larger than a basketball hoop), then you get one point. In basketball, you face no obstacles worse than a hand in your face, and for the effort of getting the ball through the hoop, you get two points. Three points if you shoot from far enough away.
Despite this incompatibility with what I consider to be fair sport, I am still drawn to the NCAA basketball tournament every March. I never care who wins, as I didn't go to any of the colleges involved and thus have no vested interest. What I like about the tourney is the format. For starters, if your team didn't get in, don't bitch. It's hard not to make the tournament. They invite 64 teams (65, if you count that stupid play-in game featuring colleges that nobody, including the students who attend them, knows exist. I don't count that game). To put that in professional perspective, that's like the NBA inviting every team into the playoffs, and then asking eight or ten teams from each of the NFL, NHL, and major league baseball to join the fray. Shoot, they would probably have to dip into soccer and lacrosse to fill out that kind of playoff schedule. The NCAA tournament is fairly liberal when it comes to qualifications.
Oh yeah, and if for some reason your college doesn't manage to get into "The Big Dance," there's another tournament called the NIT, and they invite everyone else, including online universities.
Once in the NCAA tournament, you have to win every game, just like the NFL playoffs. I like this, because after four days, most everyone is sent home a loser. By the third round, they have names. The Sweet 16, The Elite Eight, The Final Four, but nobody has ever figured out a cool adjective to go with Two, so they stick with the National Championship game, which is dull. By that point, though, nobody cares other than students and alumni of the schools involved and scouts for the lousiest NBA teams.
With all this build-up and/or explanation of "March Madness," here is my assessment of the tournament after four days:
First of all, I am very sad that I didn't bomb it up to Reno and place cash bets on all of the eleven and twelve seeds during the first round (there are sixteen seeds in each of four regions, accounting for the 64 teams total). See, betting on the eleven or twelve seeds results in an (average, depending on the bookie) five or six-to-one payoff, yet there are only eight total. As always, at least one eleven and one twelve seed wins (in this year's tourney, Midwest region #11 Kansas State beat #6 USC, Midwest #12 Villanova ousted #5 Clemson, and West #12 Western Kentucky edged #5 Drake). Had I placed twenty bucks on every eleven and twelve seed in the tournament, I would have been up nearly $200. I didn't, so I'm not.
Actually, that's all that is really important about the NCAA tournament. There was no office pool at my workplace, and I have better things to do with my time than enter fantasy picks online, so I have no interest in the remainder of the tournament. Okay, maybe because I'm a sickened sports buff, I may watch the next round or two, but really, I don't know who won last year. It wasn't Duke, because when they lost this year, I saw a graphic saying that they didn't win last year. I assumed they did, but what do I know?
I watch real sports, like hockey.
|
|
|
|
| Posted by Grogged at | | | |
|
I'm backtracking here, trying to account for a week where I didn't have time to sit in front of my computer and grog. Instead I was everywhere and grogging under various social circumstances. Most notable, or at least the night that craved blogging documentation was last Thursday, where I was a guest of the Sonoma County Young Democrats club at Upper Fourth Street. This is notable because, in spite of my relatively sane and moderate political views, I am still registered with the state of California as a member of the Republican party. Don't ask why, because even I don't understand this internal paradox anymore.
I was led to believe that this event was some type of fundraiser, but apparently all the financial cajoling had been completed beforehand. I assumed this was fact because there was an easel set up listing off the sponsors of this event, and all the attendees were encouraged to take note of who was kind enough to pay for their free drinks. Perhaps a better indicator of how much money had already been raised was the obscene quantity of hooch consumed. One thing about the politcal types - they can hold their liquor.
The way I saw it, I had two responsibilities that evening. The first was to be friendly and thank the host, which for my purposes was a good man named Ed. Ed was an acquaintance of my friend BJ, who in turn invited me, with the promise of the afforementioned free drinks.
My second responsibility was to test the limits of the poker chips that represented the gratis booze, seeing just how far up the shelf I could get away with ordering. There is never any sense in wasting free drinks on Budweiser longnecks. I started with Jameson, a modest Irish whiskey. Next I stepped up to 12 year-old Glenlivet, before finally ordering Booker's bourbon. I deliberated on the Remy Martin XO, but decided not to push it. I was, after all, still registered as Republican. My ilk are well known for abusing budgets.
The evening consisted of being introduced to many new people, many of whom were running for office in and around the county. A charming young lady named Lisa and her friend Josh proved to be engaging and kindly, and their hospitality and companionship was very much appreciated.
What suprised me most about the event, however, was how little political talk was in the air. Maybe I was just in the wrong circles, but the whole night seemed more like a typical outing at a classy bar, only without pick-up lines and ass-grabbing in the bathroom queues. Everyone just seemed to be buzzed and merry, which is a good thing. It must have been all the free drinks. |
|
|
|
| Posted by Grogged at | | | |
|
This was the second weekend of the annual Russian River Barrel Tasting extravaganza, where wineries open up barrels of unfinished wine and present them to the public. Most of those wineries insist that the wine will taste much better when done, and will not feel like you are sipping Grape Nuts (those are just the tannins). For oenophiles, this event (and the corresponding barrel tastings in other grape growing regions) is a great way to guage upcoming vintages months before the wine will be in bottles. For everyone else (97% of those buying tickets), it's a smashing way to get completely blitzed on the cheap while still appearing dignified and connosseur-like.
"You got twenty bucks? We got a hundred wineries. Here's a glass. Go!"
Sadly, it was my responsibility to operate a vehicle this pass, so I hardly had the opportunity to live up to my grogging reputation. I found myself doing the unthinkable - pouring wine out into the spit bucket. Basically, I'd wet my tongue with the stuff, so as to get a feel for what it tasted like, and then dump the rest. While this is personally abhorrent on many levels, this tactic left me with a startlingly clear recollection of the past two days.
(Note: Daytime recollection only - nights were taken care of handily by beer).
Okay, so if I had a brain, I would have actually scrawled out tasting notes, because I tasted a lot of wines over the past forty-eight hours, and now it's impossible to remember them all. Here's how I'm going to do this instead - I'll split this blog up by days, and give off the highlights, while trying not to disparage those wineries that didn't cut the mustard.
Day 1:
Region - Russian River Valley.
Wineries visited: Hanna, Dutton-Goldfield/Balletto Vineyard, Lynmar, Iron Horse, Joseph Swan, Hook & Ladder, and DeLoach.
Best wine: Hands down, Hanna 2006 Sauvignon Blanc. This stuff was to die for - best I tasted all weekend.
Other great wines: Balletto pinot gris, Lynmar pinot noir, DeLoach zinfandels, and everything else that I tasted at Hanna.
Of note: Lynmar Winery is arrestingly beautiful. I wish I had brought my camera. Hook & Ladder is a madhouse during barrel tasting (I'm almost suprised nobody was doing barrel-stands and barrel bongs). Most every pinot noir I tasted where the grapes came from the Russian River area was good. I stress most, and if you ask me in private, I'll happily warn you as to which ones sucked, because there were a couple. I just don't feel like damning wineries over the internet because everyone was so friendly and personable, in spite of their bad wine.
Day 2:
Region: Dry Creek
Wineries visited: Gopfrich, Quivera, A. Rafanelli, Amista, Wilson, Rosenblum Cellars, Stephan & Walker
Wineries denied entrance to: Passalacqua (private event - not part of barrel tasting), La Crema (five minutes too late - girl locked door on us).
Best wine: Wilson 1996 Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon
Other great wines: Most everything at Amista, most everything at Wilson, A. Rafanelli cab (but it was very, very young)
Of note: The West Dry Creek wineries seemed somewhat pretentious, like Napa Valley boutiques. I'm not sure if it was the wineries themselves, or the people that were in the tasting rooms with me, but we started in this region and got out quickly because our fun was being compromised. Wilson was a rocking party and paired some of their wines with good food (tri-tip, yo!), which made the experience that much more pleasurable. I don't know why I haven't gone tasting in Healdsburg before, because there are zillions of tasting rooms in a very compact area.
Now, the summation:
Overall, the top three wineries I hit were Hanna, Wilson, and Amista. I know Wilson wines well, having sampled a great many, and Hanna had enough of a reputation that I made it my first stop for the weekend, without disappointment. The suprise on this list is Amista. I've never heard of it, but will definitely be going back to ensure their wine is always on my rack. They had a syrah rose that was wonderful, an un-oaked chardonnay that was nice, and a distinct cabernet sauvignon that was even better with the chocolate morsel provided. If you love wine, these three are the places you have to hit. |
|
|
|
| Posted by Grogged at | | | |
|
I was going to write a short story tonight, in preparation for the Word Pirates meeting tomorrow. This was the design for the evening despite knowledge that a San Jose Sharks game would be on in the background. Sometimes, best plans go awry.
The hockey game I witnessed tonight was one of the best I have ever seen, and it prevented me from fulfilling my prime directive (= write that short story). It started with a pretty goal less than a minute in, and catapulted upward from there. I fielded calls from most everyone I know who watches the Sharks asking variants on the same question, often in the form of pleas:
"Are you watching this game?"
"Did you see that game?"
"Please tell me you saw that game."
Yes, I did, and it ruined my whole evening. Here's the rub on being a sports fan, especially when dedicated to a team; the team takes precedence. I really wanted to do something productive tonight, but I ended up sitting in front the television involuntarily spasming with each highlight reel goal, each crippling hit, and each cartwheel save. This was like one marathon episode of Sportcenter, highlight after highlight, only instead of being diversified among a dozen sports, the best of the best came from a single hockey game. How could I focus on writing under such circumstances?
But I can after wards. Hence, the blog.
And this is what I want to focus on after watching that spectacular hockey game between the San Jose Sharks and the Montreal Canadians (the first time that team has visited San Jose in four years - shame, NHL!) - Jody Shelley, the Nuclear Deterrent.
For those not attuned to the National Hockey League and its players (but yet for some reason have read to this point in the blog), Jody Shelley is a renowned fighter who has accumulated more penalties than all but one player since the world entered the future (year 2000). In hockey, that's a point of pride. The Sharks traded for him earlier this season because they didn't really have anyone who fit that role.
In hockey, that is what is called the nuclear deterrent. In conventional human existence, the nuclear deterrent is that if two countries possess nuclear bombs, and one country launches nuclear bombs at the other, there is a period of retaliation. Under those circumstances, mutual annihilation is assured (unless one country is a bad shot), and thus, peace is assured.
Jody Shelley is the nuclear bomb that Sharks possess, and the best part about tonight's game was that he was deployed to the front lines, and a clean game was assured from that point on. After a shift where Montreal and San Jose's two best scoring lines smashed the crap out of one another, the Sharks brought in Shelley. Although there was clearly discussion (as is the case with most hockey fights - it's actually a diplomatic process that leads to fisticuffs on the ice), no combat arose.
Although I have long believed that a great hockey game should contain at least one great fight, tonight was not the case. The nuclear deterrent was deployed, and for sixty minutes there were those three criteria I named above (great goals, great saves, great hits) that made for one incredible game.
There are some games that I watch that make really, really proud to be a fan of sports. The Boise State - Oklahoma game is one. Highlights of the Miracle On Ice or The Play also well me up in the tear ducts. This game was up there.
|
|
|
|
| Posted by Grogged at | | | |
|
I spend a lot of time watching the news, if for nothing else, to give the appearance that I actually care what is going on the world (most of which I don't, but I'm somewhat selfish). I read the paper daily, even if it is the relatively useless local rag. I watch CNN, but the relatively useless local rag is more of a news service than CNN. At times I switch over to MSNBC, but that's not much better. I don't watch FOX, for the flipside-of-the-coin reasons that I shouldn't watch CNN. On the net, I scour several sources, and figure that out of all of this I might actually have a sense of what is going on in the world.
One of my news sources has been the Drudge Report. I am aware of its right wing slant, but often times there are stories that appear there and nowhere else. What's a fella to do to stay informed? After all, this is the site where the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, and that should at least lend them a little bit of credibility in terms of "finding the story," even if the story is pretty much irrelevant.
What brings this up is that Drudge once again broke the story - they revealed that the British Prince dude (Harry or William - whichever) happened to fighting on the front line in Afghanistan. If you haven't been following, about ten seconds after the story went up on the website, the prince was pulled out of combat and shuttled back to the castle. "Thank you, prince, but the bad guys know you're here."
The British & American players in media had managed to keep this one quiet because, as it turns out, when the bad guys know that someone important happens to be hangin' with the grunts and actually pulling his own for a stretch, he becomes a prized target. As adamant as mainstream media is in destroying people emotionally and socially, they tend to collude (reasonably) in order to keep significant people from actually being killed.
This one is a doozy. Imagine the feather in the cap of some Taliban / Al-Qaeda fighter if he were to pop the second-in-line to the British throne. That's gotta be at least double the seventy-something virgins come the afterlife.
Okay, so cultural differences aside, the issue here is responsible media. If Drudge & his posse wanted to spill the beans, why not attack the reasons for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Showcase the suffering that innocent citizens endure because of the prolonged conflicts (on both sides of the line). Examine the economic impacts of these wars. There are lots of things that need to be covered but are otherwise ignored because they aren't sensationalist in nature.
What I've come to realize is that substantial news is not the style of Drudge. There are entertaining stories on his site, for certain, but none are actually newsworthy events. The stories on Drudge are not the stories that affect average people. They are distractions. Advertising that a British prince happens to be fighting in a war is a distraction. The news is the war - not who is fighting in it.
Journalism has a responsibility, and it is to expose the rights and wrongs of our society. You have to figure that if the British tabloid media was willing to keep the prince's deployment under wraps, then it probably a model worth following. I don't personally care about the prince, or his ilk (I personally think that the British people are absolutely nuts for supporting a royal family in any manner, but I don't live there, so I don't know the details), but I do know that highlighting a significant person in battle puts everyone around him at risk. That was the reason he was pulled out of combat.
Ultimately, what I want to say is directed at Matt Drudge and his website.
You have lost a reader.
Your irresponsible journalism put a lot of lives at risk for no reason other than to break a story. This is a story that all the other major media outlets knew about, but reasonably withheld because the powers that be understood that lives were at risk.
War is bad enough. Don't put people at unnecessarily at risk just to get a few extra clicks.
|
|
|
|
| Posted by Grogged at | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
