Behavior of Sports Fan(atic)s Rival Behavior of Religious Fanatics

A couple of days ago as I was driving into town, I heard the guy on the radio talking about some sort of . Given the , my attention wasn’t immediately tuned into what was happening. As the reporter expanded upon the story, I was appalled. The reporter proceeded to tell the listeners that one, , 42-year old and San Francisco Giants’ fan, is showing signs of brain damage after having been severely beaten by, Los Angeles Dodgers fans.

The history of violence involving fans is well documented, and typically, violence in spectator sports is more closely associated with football (or soccer for those folks in the US and Canada). The last incident of “fan violence” in baseball was in August of 2009, when a at and hit, Philadelphia Phillies centerfielder, Shane Victorino. The outfielder had some beer land on him, which is unacceptable of course, but other than that, nothing too serious.

Some of the more recent incidents of violence include a match between Italy and Serbia in October of 2010. The start of the game was delayed over half an hour. Once the game got underway, before they were ten minutes into the 1st half, a flare was thrown onto the field causing more rioting. The game was called and one team was later awarded the victory based on the fans that were causing trouble.  In March of 2010 during a game, climbed over the glass, into the bench of the opposing team, and proceeded to strike one of the goalies over the head several times with a stick. The goalie had to leave the bench area, as blood was running down his face, and he was later diagnosed with a concussion. If you’re interested, there’s a .

On the face of these myriad incidents of violence by fans in sports, I can’t help but think of the true meaning of the word fan. The word fan, comes from the word fanatic, which means, “. . .” In my opinion, these fans are definitely exhibiting “extreme enthusiasm” in support of their team. In the definition I provided, I left out five words that appear after the word zeal. These five words: “as in religion or politics.”

When I hear about these horrendous acts of violence committed in the “name of one’s team,” I can’t help but make the connection to another brand of fanaticism — religious fanaticism. After the events of , the world was led to believe that these attacks were committed by religious fanatics (and that may well be the case, but I don’t think anyone can be absolutely certain of any of the explanations for what happened). Since then, opening up the or the to find an article about someone killing in the name of religion has become somewhat normalized because of how often it happens. Is there really a big difference between religious fanaticism and sports fanaticism?

If there is, to me, the difference is negligible, and I for one, think this is awful. Fans identify with their teams so much so that they feel compelled to harm another human being! I was an athlete and I can tell you, after the game is over, life still goes on. You go on and eat your meals, sleep, read books, and do all of the other things that people do. To some fans, when the game ends, their life, in a way, ends. I think this kind of attachment to sports is unhealthy. Similarly, I think the attachment to religion that is displayed by those who believe they are doing right by their religion by killing in the name of their deity is also a little bit too far. Don’t get me wrong, I understand the thinking that goes into their decision and prosper in the afterlife, but it is my opinion, that there is never a valid reason to kill another human being, (or one’s self for that matter).

Aren’t We All Just Baby Chicks Following a Mother Hen?

Because of where I live, I have the great fortune of being able to look out my window and see an abundance of roosters. And because of this abundance of roosters, undoubtedly, there are a number of baby chicks. These baby chicks don’t just wander aimlessly across the lawn looking for food or something to do. These baby chicks, instead, are quite deliberate in their actions. In fact, these baby chicks follow around the mother hen. Partially, because their life depends upon it. Maybe not where I live, but in some parts of the world, if a baby chick strays to far from momma, it’s likely to be another creature’s tasty snack.

As I watched these baby chicks following the mother hen, I looked a little closer at their actions. I wanted to see why it was they were following mother around. From what I was able to gather, these baby chicks are following mother around because they’re safer (read: ), but more than that, mother hen shows them what’s foot and what’s not food. This may have been some sort of anomaly, but from the dozens of  minutes I was able to watch (on different days), the hens would go to an area of the lawn and then call the chicks over to where she was (usually a distance of mere away). The mother hen would then begin pecking away at the grass (or something on the lawn) and the baby chicks would follow suit.

I soon learned, just from watching, that this was how the baby chicks were able to eat. Either the mom was helping to pull something up out of the ground or she was identifying what was nutritious for the baby chicks. The mother hen would vary her time in how long she spent in an area. When she left one area, some of the baby chicks would immediately follow her, while others, remained behind (to pick-up the scraps?) As I continued to watch the dynamics of the situation, I began to be able to notice parallels to the news of society.

The different big-branded news corporations (, , , , , etc.) are all like mother hens and us, the viewers, are like baby chicks. When one of these news conglomerates reports on a story, immediately, our attention is drawn to that area of the world. When one of the mother hens calls the baby chicks attention to one area of the lawn, immediately, that is where their attention goes. The chicks run over to see what’s happening. Like the baby chicks, the viewers become immediately concerned with whatever is being reported to them.

When a reporter or hen talks about a certain story, they are drawing your attention to that story. Unintentionally or not, they are also drawing your attention away from any other story that they could have reported on. As the reporter moves onto another story the next day, some viewers move onto the next story with them, while some viewers stay enveloped in “yesterday’s news.” Sometimes, this is for good (maybe their favorite team won a big game) and sometimes it’s maybe for not so good reasons (?)

Being able to watch these baby chicks follow around the mother hen allowed me to see something that is played out in society time and time again. Somebody (the hen) says xyz is important, so instantly, everyone else (the baby chicks) buy-in to the story to see just what xyz about. My point in this story about the hen and the baby chicks is that all of us, in one way or another, is following around a hen. Whether we watch the news on any particular station, read about news on the internet, or get our news from our friends. Regardless, our attention is being drawn to a story (more times than not) because someone said it was important. I think it is paramount to remember that had we been following a different hen, our views, beliefs, and ideas about the world would likely be completely different.

Would You Take a Pill to Make You Smarter?

I had the chance to see the recent film, , and I must say, the premise makes for a good conversation. The protagonist is a failed writer who stumbles into a secret drug that allows him to harness his intelligence prowess. I won’t go into any further detail of the film, but I do want to talk about this perceived ‘super-human’ ability that the movie is based on.

Let’s say that you’re given the opportunity to take a pill. This pill will allow you to use your own ability to its full extent. Meaning, the pill won’t add anything to what you have, but will merely allow you to access all of it more readily. This pill, also, will not have any side effects. The drug has been tested up the wazoo for any potential “negative” side effects and there aren’t any. Would you take it?

This, to me, is a very interesting dilemma. Initially, one would think that it’s only a as there isn’t currently a drug on the market that has these capabilities, side effects or not, or is there? Part of me thinks that if someone can make a movie about it, there is probably some truth to the premise. So, maybe there is a secret drug that enhances one’s abilities. Maybe this secret drug doesn’t enhance one’s abilities as much as the movie portrays and maybe the side effects are worse than what they talk about in the film.

Either way, it’s something interesting to consider. I think, for me, it would be a very tough decision. Thankfully, I do not currently possess a drug with these capabilities, so I am not faced with this moral dilemma. And isn’t it partially a moral dilemma? Taking this kind of drug would, at least partially, change the person who took it. The argument could be made that the person is really just a better version of themselves, but then the counter-argument says that changing one’s self (even for the better) is changing who you are.

Let’s face it — it would be really cool to be able to ‘access’ all of one’s abilities just by taking a pill. Something tells me that we probably can access all of our abilities (like the protagonist after ingesting the pill) and not have the ill-effects from the drug. Many people would consider , (the act of describing targets [people, places, etc.] at a distance) to be a somewhat super-human capability, but we, as humans, have already been able to do this (without the use of drugs). In the 1970s, the. Heck, you can even to see if you can “remotely view.”

There really is so much already written about this topic that a post like this could turn into a thesis or a dissertation. These ‘special powers’ have been part of some of the world’s religion for thousands of years. buddha tibet buddhismIn Buddhism, they have what is known as a . The Sanskrit word, Siddhi, translates to perfection, but what it is referring to is psychic powers. So, in this sense, some religions already believe that humans possess the capacity to attain these abilities without the use of drugs.

Overall, the idea of increased intelligence is fascinating. For me, it would be important that to whom this ability was bestowed (or earned or however it happened) be to someone who was highly ethical and moral. I really wouldn’t want a super-human trying to swindle money from people. From my perspective, increased intelligence or (enhanced ability to access one’s intelligence) could come in very handy for engineering peace between nations.

Misrepresenting the News: Infer-mation Overload

In a previous post, I talked about how the . This post is about a blatant misrepresentation of fact.

In the first line of , the author writes:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday that Al Jazeera is gaining more prominence in the U.S. because it offers “real news” — something she said American media were falling far short of doing.

If you watch the video that accompanies said article, or read the article on the , you see that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is actually saying:

“In fact viewership of al Jazeera is going up in the United States because it’s real news. You may not agree with it, but you feel like you’re getting real news around the clock instead of a million commercials and, you know, arguments between talking heads and the kind of stuff that we do on our news which, you know, is not particularly informative to us, let alone foreigners.”

Clinton does not explicitly say that the U.S. media does not offer real news. Instead, she says that American news is not particularly informative. One can see how this can be inferred from what she said, but it is not what she said. This is something that irks me about news agencies in general, but I can understand how it is necessary in our entertainment-driven society.

Why can’t we just have news that reports on the facts rather than one that tries to ‘‘ the news in one direction. This has gone so far that after debates between political candidates, representatives from either side are meant to spin what their respective candidate said in what is called the “.” We actually call the place where this happens the spin room. Isn’t that a little far? Shouldn’t we just be talking about what the candidate said?

Maybe my line of thinking is too utopian. Maybe my ideals are a little lofty in that there needn’t be a place for — intentionally or unintentionally. I’d really just like to have someone tell me the facts of the day and what that could potentially mean, from a systematic point of view.

In today’s world where there are proponents from both side jockeying for mine (and your) attention at 6pm to get the daily dose of the facts, it almost seems safer to watch both of the news to get a more accurate perspective on what’s been happening. However, some sources like one, and one, explain that watching the news can actually make you less informed about what’s going on. With the advance of social networking, maybe it’s almost safer just to follow the to see what’s happening in the world.

Advancing America’s Public Transportation System: High-Speed Rail in the USA

When it was first announced that the US was going to work on , I was very excited! Growing up in the , I am very familiar with the value of public transportation. I often rode a bus to and from school. As I matured and wanted to explore downtown with my friends, we’d ride the to get there from the suburban area we lived. Beyond that, when I needed to make trips between Detroit and Toronto, I would ride the between Toronto and Windsor instead of taking the 45 minute flight. Public transportation is a great way, in my opinion, to feel better about reducing one’s .

Don’t get me wrong, I love flying just as much as the next person and I’d much prefer it for travel to/from Europe to/from North America — who’d want to take a passenger ferry across the Atlantic given how much longer it would be? When I look at what the current high-speed rail map in the US looks like and then I look at the current high-speed rail map of Europe… it’s flabbergasting!   I’ve hyperlinked the two maps to bigger versions of themselves, so you can really get an idea for how much more advanced Europe is than the US when it comes to their rail system. It’s almost a little embarrassing just how much farther ahead Europe is in this regard.

Some people try to argue that Europe is much smaller, so a rail system makes more sense there. Well, as we can see from the image to the right (), Europe is not actually that much smaller than the USA. In fact, they’re pretty comparable in size. One of the reasons that Europe can sometimes be perceived as smaller than the USA is a function of . Regardless, from my perspective, there really aren’t any good reasons as to why the US hasn’t adopted a high-speed rail system. Even adds his two cents to the debate. In all my time watching Bill Nye as a kid (and in the classroom), I don’t think I’ve ever heard him speak so blatantly negative about anything! He must really feel passionate about this particular circumstance.

Not everything surrounding the high-speed rail system in the US has to be about negativity. In taking a closer look at what the network of rail systems will look like when the projected plan is completed (in 2030), is kind of exciting. Passengers will be able to go from Vancouver, BC, to Miami, FL — all by high-speed rail! They could go from San Diego, CA, to Montreal, QC, again — all by high-speed rail! For me, someone who cherishes the value of public transportation, this is really exciting.

As the plans and the work for this public transportation system continue, I wonder what Europe (and Asia) will come up with next in the way of public transportation. Many areas on these continents already have high-speed rail systems, so, it is logical to think that they will be busy thinking up the next great transportation revolution. Regardless, I’m very excited to see the progress being made in the world with regard to public transportation.

Should We Have Seen This Coming?

While history is made everyday, in the , there was at least a bit of foreshadowing. During these elections, the was the highest it has been since 1938 – when FDR was President. Much of the ink printed around the midterm elections was focused on the prospects of . While that is also an important issue, the pressing matter of today seems to be what is happening in Wisconsin and whether or not it will happen in other states like Ohio, New Jersey, Florida, and Michigan.

I remember when the numbers were rolling in, and the state legislatures began to flip (from Democrat to Republican) such that , that it may prove to be ominous. While I may have thought it to be a foreshadowing of things to come, never could I have predicted (nor do I think others could have) the . Not to mention the kind of national spotlight that has been thrust upon the issue(s) at hand.

I’m wondering, though, if the political arena should have seen this coming when all the state legislatures flipped in November (of 2010)? Like I said, in my non-exhaustive search, I didn’t find anyone predicting it and I suppose you really can’t blame anyone for not predicting it. Who could have, given the data at hand? Nonetheless, it’s quite breathtaking to flip on the TV and see thousands of people gathering together for what they believe.

During my time as an undergraduate, I had a with what it takes to hold and organize a rally at a state legislature. From this experience, I can say that what is happening in Wisconsin is truly remarkable. I was only involved in a rally of about 1000 people for a few hours — these people have sustained protests of more than 50,000 people for nearly two weeks.

While someone, somewhere, may claim to have been able to predict what the Wisconsin State Legislature is doing, I would be highly suspicious of someone claiming to have been able to predict the public opposition in the way of . Citizens have voiced their opinions on issues before, but never in my lifetime have I seen it happen like this. The most interesting thing to me is the context for which this is happening.

I’ve talked about some of the recent world events and how that ,  but I think the protests in Wisconsin may not be happening the way they are if there weren’t already the massive protests in Tunisia and Egypt. The fair majority of Americans stay current in the way of the news of the day and because of technology, the news of the day is something that can become the news of this minute or the news of this second. I think with Americans being exposed to the possibility of protests and more importantly, protests working, it might have given hope or purpose to those in Wisconsin who saw fit to stand for what they believe in.

Are We Missing Something?

In following up on what , had a small bit on her tonight talking about all of the different parts of the Middle East that are experiencing seemingly revolutionary events. I think it’s quite amazing just how many different countries are going through similar unrest. I can’t imagine that anything like this has ever happened in history before.

A couple of weeks back I had the chance to catch a few scenes of . I had already seen the movie before, so it was less about ‘watching a movie’ and more about remembering what the movie was about. As I was watching it and experiencing having “ultimate” powers with the main character, I was struck by how narrow-minded the character was. The character (Bruce) was so focused on improving his immediate life and not exponentially or anything, just the ‘next’ promotion.

He thought that all he needed in life was this promotion and he worked his butt off (even with super powers) to get it. Eventually, the main character realizes that there’s more to life than getting that job that he thought he wanted. However, this is not quite what I’m interested in talking about today.

The character was so focused on what was in front of him that he was missing what was around him. His girlfriend at the time, played by Jennifer Aniston, had been anticipating a marriage proposal. When she thought she was about to receive the proposal, the male protagonist had called her to dinner to tell her that he had finally got the promotion that he was after. Heartbroken, she leaves him, but eventually, things all work out happily in the end.

In the world right now, there is so much happening. There are numerous reforms happening in the Middle East, there are happening all around the globe, there is political unrest in Wisconsin as the in the state that created them, but most of all, the needle of time continues to move from left to right. I wonder, with everything that’s happening in the world in here and now, what are we missing in the grander picture of Earth. What is it that we’re not seeing because we’re so caught up in what’s happening right now?

Revolution, Revolution, Everywhere!

I recently was lucky enough to bear witness to what is likely to win a number of awards at this year’s Oscars — . While the writers of the film did their best to maintain , of course, some dramatic liberties were taken. Nonetheless, I thought it was a rather smart movie and really allowed the audience to peer behind the curtains of what it was like for King George VI in the earlier part of the 1900s.

One of the things that surprised me in the film was when one of the character’s pointed out that if England were to go to war with Germany, it would mark the second world war that some of the citizens of the country would have witnessed. I can’t imagine being alive at a time such that I would have been able to see not just one world war, but two! Regardless, it reminded me that the state of our world is still not quite where I’d like it to be — peacefully — that is.

I suppose that with each passing day, something is learned, or at least I hope that’s the case. Why else would we be seeing the that we are seeing in Egypt and Tunisia? And now, countries like Bahrain and Libya are seeing what happened in nearby countries and want to stand up and be heard. I think it’s great that we are living in a time where the actions of one group in one country can affect the actions of another group in another country — instantaneously!

Without the internet and the speed at which news can travel in our modern time, I doubt that Egypt (or even Tunisia?) has the success that it did in the peaceful demonstrations. The miracle that is the internet is allowing to succeed without literal “close contact” and instead, it is close contact through social media. Things are happening really fast nowadays, wouldn’t you say?

It was only just about a month ago that the riots started happening in Tunisia. Since then, we’ve already had reform in Tunisia and an uprising and reform in Egypt. As mentioned earlier, now countries like Bahrain and Libya seem to be joining the fray as candidates for reform (although the governments of these countries, and , might not go down without a fight).

So adults living at the time of King George VI got to say, although probably not felt as a privilege, that they witnessed their country enter into two world wars. Adults living today get to say that they’ve been able to watch the fall of two governments in just under a month with the prospect of others to follow. The year 2011 is still quite green… I wonder what else oh-eleven will bring us.

Same News, Different Perspective

The 2011 trade deadline for the National Hockey League () is nearing and with that, the propensity to move players from team-to-team has increased. Late last week, there was a particular trade that sent one player, , from the to the in exchange for a couple of . While this seems a bit like inconsequential news in the scheme of things, I found it absolutely perfect to illustrate a point about how the same facts can be talked about in different ways in the media.

We have a fact: Mike Fisher was traded to the Nashville Predators. It would seem that there really isn’t anything more to this story than one team is trading a player and one team is acquiring a player, right? Well, that’s what most people would think, at least. But, it just so happens that Mike Fisher is married to a very popular female in the country music business and… it just so happens that Nashville is the “seat of power” for country music.

Quickly, the news that became . To the sports world, it mattered that it was , and to the entertainment industry, it mattered that . It’s of no surprise that news can be important to different people for different reasons and as such, the news will be reported in different ways to different people.

I find this fascinating because it’s the same piece of news being reported on differently. The NHL is of seemingly little importance to the political arena, national security, or education reformation, but these are all different areas of news that can be reported on in just the same way. Meaning, there are going to be different angles on the same piece of political news (the angles reported to the Democrats and the angles reported to the Republicans are the angles we hear the majority of the time).

In my research of collecting articles/links for this post, I noticed that one of the articles I found actually spoke to both of the angles in the same article. That is, , addressed that Mike Fisher was traded to the Predators and that Carrie Underwood’s husband was traded to Nashville. While the trade’s importance may not be of global importance, I was still happy to read that the author was reporting on more than just the sports-angle or the entertainment-angle. I wish that all news was reported in this fashion, with at least an acknowledgement to the implications of the facts from more than one perspective.

Keith Olbermann joins ‘Independent’ News at Current TV

Earlier today, made his choice to join . Just about every news agency in the world has an opinion on this story and without a doubt, they are going to spin it every which way. The ‘facts’ of this story are that Olbermann has decided to join Current TV. He has also been selected as the Chief News Officer. I’m not quite sure what a Chief News Officer is and a quick Google search only turns up results of today’s news. Nonetheless, these are the facts of the news, but I think it’s interesting to see all the different ways that the story is spun, depending on the bend of the news agency. If you have a minute, check out the NYT, or the WSJ, or HuffPo, or FOX, or Yahoo, and see just how many different stories are written about the same story.

Olbermann said his choice of Current TV was because of its “.” While that may be the case, it’s hard to think of any news agency as a model for truth seeking. It’s not that I have a particular vendetta against news corporations, but given the ‘demand’ for 24/7 news, it’s easy to see how the severity of a story can be escalated, eschewed, and exaggerated. His choice of Current TV, no doubt, will give the CurrentTV website a bump in traffic that they weren’t expecting. As well, I would expect to see a bump in the ratings for CurrentTV (tonight?), but most definitely when Olbermann hits the air in .

While its interesting that (and still does) in starting this media company, I think it’s interesting to note that Comcast has a . I’m sure you’re all well aware of the recent that took place in January. While Comcast’s stake is only 10 percent, I wonder if that stake will increase at all in the next year. Keith Olbermann will undoubtedly bring ratings to CurrentTV and consequently, more profit. Maybe Al Gore will want to sell his stake when CurrentTV is on an upswing and who better to swoop in and take Gore’s shares off his hands. . .

Another interesting perspective on this situation is the . It was not publicly known as to exact details of the deal that was made, but I wonder if it might have been as . When I say limiting, I mean to say that the talent may have been very limited in their choice for their next venture. Maybe it was that Olbermann agreed that he wouldn’t go to another ‘major’ news corporation like CNN or CBS. I don’t know that Olbermann had any desire to join one of these organizations and given his statements about media conglomerations, it would seem not. However, many of the people in our society today are motivated by money. If Olbermann really had a choice between money and independent news, then I applaud him for siding with his conscience.