Curmudgeon

Members
  • Content count

    304
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

434 Excellent

About Curmudgeon

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Somewhere Out There
  • Interests
    Hockey, computers, music, art, photography, travel, reading, journalism

Recent Profile Visitors

2,426 profile views
  1. I certainly hear what you are saying and understand why you might say it. But I just don't believe that Ryan Lochte's stupid behaviour in any way poses any extra threat to other Americans at large in the world. He is a certifiable jerk and represents everything the rest of the world finds objectionable about Americans, but I have a hard time believing that, if he were to return to Rio and go through whatever legal dog and pony show the Brazilians might serve up, the rest of the world would say, "Well, I have new found respect for Americans because Ryan Lochte faced the music and was shamed before the world. And by the way, I now believe that all Americans are safer now." Again, I believe you are placing too much importance on a minor incident. The easiest way to deal with Lochte is to simply state, "He doesn't represent what it means to be American". Then completely ignore anything he says or does from now on. In the absence of publicity, the public will soon forget about Lochte. That's the worst possible outcome for an attention-whore like Lochte: to be ignored and forgotten.
  2. Yes, and every travellling American will be sick with worry for the their own safety until Ryan Lochte is finally brought to justice for petty vandalism and lying. I really think you are attaching far too much importance on the boorish actions of a spoiled, entitled adult. Yes, Lochte unthinkingly displays the stereotypical behaviour of the privileged American drinking and behaving badly, but will shaming him and fining him accomplish anything other than, well, shaming and fining him?
  3. Okay, Brazil, enough is enough. Nobody died, people got paid, the authorties got to be indignant on a world stage, Lochte was dropped by all of his major sponsors, life goes on. In whose interest is it to pursue charges aginst Lochte? Nobody that I can see.
  4. Again with a false equivalence. You are comparing the treatment or attitude towards police as being the same as the treatment of black people by the police. Even if there was some sort of equivalence, there really isn't for two inescapable reasons: 1) the police have firearms, and 2) the police have the authority of the law they can use to justify any kind of action against whatever they feel to be a threat. In the USA, blacks are disproportionately singled out for police attention. By any metric, that is a fact. But don't take my word for it; read any or all the following three articles: http://www.salon.com/2016/07/14/sorry_conservatives_new_research_from_harvard_shows_a_profound_amount_of_racism_by_policenot_less_of_it/ http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/07/data-police-racial-bias http://www.vox.com/2015/5/7/8562077/police-racism-implicit-bias This is a complicated issue with all kinds of moving parts, but as I see it, the Black Lives Matter movement is about two things; making everyone aware of the impact of race in the questionable actions of police officers, and 2) organizing for political power. As for the wackos who take up guns themselves and pick off policemen, they are no more representative of the BLM movement than a suicide bomber represents mainstream Islam. And yes, it is difficult to be a police officer and some people have a tendency to tar all of them with the same brush, but if you think about it, some people tend to tar just about every profession with the same brush. There are people who think all lawyers are slimy crooks, all teachers are lazy and overpaid, all accountants are boring nerds, all hockey players are solid citizens and role models for kids, all Russian athletes are on PEDs, all doctors care only about their money, and so on. At the end of the day, it is inaccurate and unfair to imply that all police officers mistreat black people, but that doesn't change the fact that blacks are proportionately more likely to be hassled by police than white people.
  5. Wholeheartedly agree, but it's not just the arrogance that is astounding; it is also the ignorance and the lame attempts at justification of a viewpoint based in that ignorance. The cold, hard truth is that nobody who is not black can have the faintest idea of what it is like to grow up as a black person within a predominantly white majority. Further, to say that I am east Asian and my people were treated horribly but we survived, or that I am South Asian and the police target our young men, too, or to say the white culture has been screwing over we First Nations peoples is not a valid argument. It is a false equivalence, and the premise is wrong because the black experience is not equivalent to anyone else's.
  6. Biega has succeeded against enormous odds to earn a spot in the NHL. If any mouth-breathing blogger can't recognize how difficult that is, and how so many other supposedly better players never make that jump, he should go back to playing Pokemon. Articles describing the worst of anything are a waste of time and effort because they focus on the negative, and who really needs or wants that? Smithers Joe had it right; we should focus on the positives with the team we support. All the rest is noise.
  7. A certain amount of a rout is the score, but I also think that equal weight has to go to the team that completely and utterly dominates the other team. In hockey, if you could win 4-1, but outshoot the other guys 50-17, and win each of the three fights in the game, I'd say that is a rout. As for other sports, the same general theory applies: partially the score, partially the statistical domination and partially the domination of the other team. A rout may be hard to define, but everybody knows one when he or she sees one.
  8. Not at all. Everyone can live however he or she chooses, but I can certainly express my opinion that to jump off a mountain is stupid. I am not telling anyone how to live; I am merely providing an alternate perspective that is no less valid than your own by describing an alternative to challenging death, and losing.
  9. So, by this logic, it is better to die at, say 24, than to live another 50 or 60 years? Don't buy this argument. Surely there are other things to love that are just as rewarding and a whole lot less dangerous, and that allow a person to live a rich, full life with partners and friends and maybe children of one's own. Jumping off a mountain, knowing there's a good chance of ending up as a pizza on jagged rocks, is just stupid. And to say, well, he died doing what he loved, does nothing to fill the void of those who loved and cared about him. He who dies doing what he loved is still dead.
  10. What makes you think he'll even make it to free agency? If he has any kind of a year, Chicago will move to tie him up and worry about the cap later.
  11. When Stafford Smythe, then the owner of the Maple Leafs, offerred to build a downtown arena so that Vancouver could get an NHL franchise. The City told said no thanks, and a while later the Pacific Coliseum was built. Then a Minnesota medical business called Medicor, owned by Tom Scallen and run by Lyman Walters, was awarded a franchise for Vancouver for (I think) $6 million. Scallen and Walters ended up in jail and the Canucks ended up being owned by the Griffiths family. (Fuzzy on the details)
  12. Now, that's a misogynist comment from someone to whom gold is the only measure of success. Hope you win everything you try, because by your metric if you don't, you are a failure. As an example, you have tried to convince others that you are right but you haven't. Guess you are a failure.
  13. There's actually a name for this: it's called Muphry's Law, which states that any attempt to correct or ridicule the spelling or grammar mistake of another will ALWAYS contain a spelling error of its own.
  14. Not to be argumentative, but what would a green light from ownership for a complete rebuild look like? And how would it look different from what is already happening? Specifically, what is the "more" that Benning could do?
  15. Perhaps you could explain how anybody would even go about buying congress off. Who would do the buying? For what reasons? How much would it cost? How could you be sure the people being bought would actually do what they are being bought off to do? And how, exactly, do you go about rigging the voting process so that nobody will know, except , of course, for the people you bought off to rig it? Inquiring minds need to know.......