The NHL is facing its second lockout in ten years. This is going to be absolutely detrimental for the sport. Yes, people will still like hockey, but this is really going to destroy the momentum that has been built up. What frustrates me more than the fact that there is going to be a lockout (anyone who says otherwise is delusional) is the reaction of the owners, the players, and the fans in this situation.
I understand that owners want to retain the majority of their profits. Why should players be able to get 57% of profits? This number is astronomical! When you see some of the deals that were made when players were traded (10-year deals to Minnesota, anyone?) you can see that there needs to be a stop to this. What company allows their employees to have more than 50% of the companies profits? This is just greed from the players. I understand that the players are the ones out there on the ice game after game, but the owners are the ones that fund the teams, create publicity, make players the face of a team. The owners are the ones that put in all the work behind the scenes. There needs to be serious concessions from the players.
Another thing that is really bothering me about the negotiations is the fact that owners cannot, by law, talk about what is happening. But you know who isn't? Players. And oh are they ever so vocal right now. Some players have even made statements that they don't think owners are as well informed. No, maybe you've taken a few too many hits... They aren't allowed to talk about what is happening so the public doesn't get each person's opinion. The fact that players are now extremely vocal about everything means that fans everywhere are losing sight of the fact that this could have all been avoided months ago when the realignment and new CBA was proposed months ago (before playoffs even started). The NHLPA shut it down and it is due to them that we're looking at another lockout.
And, really, fans? How you be so blind? Just because you love the sport doesn't mean you need to back the players 100% or the owners 100%. Both sides are being ridiculous and need to really sit down and come up with a deal. Maybe its time for a lock-in, lock-in everyone in a room and don't let anyone out for any reason until they come to a compromise. And for the love of all that is hockey stop calling for boycotts. This is just insane. If there is a lockout, yes, I'll be pissed because everyone involved is too big-headed and greedy to back down a little but I'm not going to stop watching hockey. I've made a promise to myself I wont be buying hockey tickets for the next year, but that is my own personal protest (and I just bought a house so that cuts into my hockey budget). I'm still going to watch as many games as I can. If I'm given tickets I'll gladly go, but I'm not buying tickets. If you love hockey, a lockout isn't going to get you to stop watching it. It might make you reevaluate how much money you're willing to give them for a while.
Lastly, I really wish sports in general would think about other people involved. Last year when the NBA was locked out, I know that there were several bars right by the AAC that really struggled due to the loss of revenue from people going down for the games. Sports teams everywhere need to take into account that a lockout and a strike is going to affect the people that work in restaurants and bars surrounding the stadium, the people that work in the stadium, the cops that work those events, the list goes on! When I think about the fact that franchises are willing to jeopardize these people's lives just to save themselves a few million dollars, that probably pisses me off more than anything. Not everyone affected by lockouts is a millionaire. There are more everyday people affected than there are millionaires.
I want fans and players and owners to realize that the approach they're taking now is obviously not working and it is leading everyone to be furious over the situation. They're screwing over each other and themselves. No one wins in a lockout and the fans and employees in the arena and surrounding bars are the ones that really suffer.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Monday, September 10, 2012
Music Mondays: Never Shout Never "Coffee and Cigarettes"
Happy Monday! Here's something a little mellow and calm to start your week off right. Have a great week!
Saturday, September 8, 2012
I hate concerts but love music
So, I was reading this post on Books of Adam the other day and I really understand where he's coming from about the whole concert thing.
I would suggest giving it a read because its hilarious. If you don't feel like doing that, the first part is pretty much how he doesn't like going to concerts and why. And you know what, save for a few bands and specific venues, I completely agree. Some people might realize that a lot of the reasons they don't like doing something are for the same reason he doesn't really see the point of a concert. It's why I don't like most sporting events. But concerts, I dislike concerts for a different reason. I'm claustrophobic and I have to deal with social anxiety.
If I'm going to be going to a concert, I have to spend a few hours mentally preparing myself for the fact that I'm going to be interacting with strangers for the night. Or I drink to avoid a panic attack. Usually I spend a few hours mentally preparing myself, feel a panic attack starting to creep in on me while at a show so I drink. A lot. And this really isn't a healthy thing to do because 1). It's bad to drink heavily and 2). It doesn't really solve the problem and has sometimes (read that as 'a lot of the times') backfired. That's why I try to stick to outdoor shows and venues (here in Dallas two of my favorite venues are Gexa and LaGrange). Even at a sold out show you don't ever feel like it's sold out because it's so open. In these places, I don't have to worry too much about interacting with other people or getting claustrophobic. I wish all venues were like them...
I went to a concert a couple weeks ago at a venue I love and I've never had problems with before. The venue itself is great and open and had great sound and I've seen some great bands play there. This concert though, I almost had a panic attack and I ended up leaving halfway through the headlining act, something that has never happened to me at this venue. I've been to a few sold-out shows at this venue and never had a problem, but this show was different. Maybe it was due to the fact that at other shows people generally crowded the stage. Maybe it was because this was a much older crowd than usual. I don't know honestly. I just know it was insanely loud from people talking to each other and yelling to each other over the music and extremely packed. And halfway through the headlining set I started to have a panic attack. It really sucked.
I'm planning on going to another show to this venue in a little less than a month. If it were anyone else I wouldn't go, just because it was a really fucking terrible experience. But I love this band. And I love the ten people that I always see at their shows. I couldn't imagine missing them because I've never missed them when they've come to Dallas and I don't plan to start now. But now I'm really kind of dreading going just because I freaked out and had a panic attack. I know, logically, that just because it happened one time does not mean it will happen another time I go. I know, logically, that I've been fine every other show I've been to there and will probably be fine this next time. Somehow this doesn't matter and every time I think about this, I start to freak out again. It really, really sucks.
Its really a very frustrating thing since I really love music. There are a lot of concerts that I've gone to that I had a great time and really enjoyed myself. Sadly, that isn't the case most of the time. There's something really great about going to a show and singing along with a band while they play songs you love while you and 500 other people sing along. There's something great about going to a concert and being around people that you otherwise have nothing in common with, just that you love this music. I've met a few people at a couple shows that are great people that I would never have met otherwise. It's beautiful how something as simple as a song can bring so many people together, even if for only a few hours.
I love music, but why do I constantly feel the need to try and go to concerts when there's a 50/50 chance I'll be miserable and/or freak out? Does anyone else put themselves into situations they hate just for something they love? Or am I the only one that puts myself through this kind of thing?
I would suggest giving it a read because its hilarious. If you don't feel like doing that, the first part is pretty much how he doesn't like going to concerts and why. And you know what, save for a few bands and specific venues, I completely agree. Some people might realize that a lot of the reasons they don't like doing something are for the same reason he doesn't really see the point of a concert. It's why I don't like most sporting events. But concerts, I dislike concerts for a different reason. I'm claustrophobic and I have to deal with social anxiety.
If I'm going to be going to a concert, I have to spend a few hours mentally preparing myself for the fact that I'm going to be interacting with strangers for the night. Or I drink to avoid a panic attack. Usually I spend a few hours mentally preparing myself, feel a panic attack starting to creep in on me while at a show so I drink. A lot. And this really isn't a healthy thing to do because 1). It's bad to drink heavily and 2). It doesn't really solve the problem and has sometimes (read that as 'a lot of the times') backfired. That's why I try to stick to outdoor shows and venues (here in Dallas two of my favorite venues are Gexa and LaGrange). Even at a sold out show you don't ever feel like it's sold out because it's so open. In these places, I don't have to worry too much about interacting with other people or getting claustrophobic. I wish all venues were like them...
I went to a concert a couple weeks ago at a venue I love and I've never had problems with before. The venue itself is great and open and had great sound and I've seen some great bands play there. This concert though, I almost had a panic attack and I ended up leaving halfway through the headlining act, something that has never happened to me at this venue. I've been to a few sold-out shows at this venue and never had a problem, but this show was different. Maybe it was due to the fact that at other shows people generally crowded the stage. Maybe it was because this was a much older crowd than usual. I don't know honestly. I just know it was insanely loud from people talking to each other and yelling to each other over the music and extremely packed. And halfway through the headlining set I started to have a panic attack. It really sucked.
I'm planning on going to another show to this venue in a little less than a month. If it were anyone else I wouldn't go, just because it was a really fucking terrible experience. But I love this band. And I love the ten people that I always see at their shows. I couldn't imagine missing them because I've never missed them when they've come to Dallas and I don't plan to start now. But now I'm really kind of dreading going just because I freaked out and had a panic attack. I know, logically, that just because it happened one time does not mean it will happen another time I go. I know, logically, that I've been fine every other show I've been to there and will probably be fine this next time. Somehow this doesn't matter and every time I think about this, I start to freak out again. It really, really sucks.
Its really a very frustrating thing since I really love music. There are a lot of concerts that I've gone to that I had a great time and really enjoyed myself. Sadly, that isn't the case most of the time. There's something really great about going to a show and singing along with a band while they play songs you love while you and 500 other people sing along. There's something great about going to a concert and being around people that you otherwise have nothing in common with, just that you love this music. I've met a few people at a couple shows that are great people that I would never have met otherwise. It's beautiful how something as simple as a song can bring so many people together, even if for only a few hours.
I love music, but why do I constantly feel the need to try and go to concerts when there's a 50/50 chance I'll be miserable and/or freak out? Does anyone else put themselves into situations they hate just for something they love? Or am I the only one that puts myself through this kind of thing?
Friday, September 7, 2012
Are books dead? Or is reading?
Many organizations try to say that people are reading less today than in years past because they don't want to have the hassle of carrying around a book. Some people feel that with the rise of e-readers like the Kindle and the Nook that book sales have declined because people are embracing technology. These same people say that print books are dead. There are also people that say that e-readers are part of the technology that is pushing people away from reading; technology fosters shorter attention spans that discourage people from spending time to read a book. There is the constant thought that reading is decreasing and that people don't want to read because they have more entertaining things like the internet in life.
But what form of reading is "better"? Is reading decreasing? Are we devolving into an illiterate society?
I love books. I have a room in my house where three out of four walls have floor-to-ceiling bookshelves, each shelf filled with books. I have an office with two walls with the same floor-to-ceiling bookshelves. There is a joy that comes with reading a physical book and turning the pages. There's a satisfying feeling that comes with turning the final page of a book and feeling all of the emotions wash over you. When you have certain books that you turn to during tough times in your life, it is comforting to return to them and see the cracked spine and the well-worn pages that hold certain passages that mean something special to you. You can't get these feelings from an e-reader. Books can be signed by an author and held on display, they can have lines underlined, they can have thoughts written into the margins. They can have messages written in before you give it to a friend to read, pointing out your favorite parts of the book so friends can feel you reading along with them. Books are personable.
Can an e-reader ever replace the feeling emitted from a solid book in your hand? No. They can be convenient and allow a person to carry a library with them anywhere. They make trips to the doctor's office a bit less cumbersome. Instead of having to try and fit a 600+ novel into my bag, I can slip my tiny, almost weightless Kindle into my purse and have access to any book written. I know many people that buy an e-reader with the intention of getting back into reading only to use it for games, internet browsing, social networking and the like. When you have that internet connection, it does make the draw of reading a bit less. Why read a book when you can check facebook, read the news, and look up recipes for dinner? In a way, an e-reader just gives another outlet for people to be distracted and detach themselves from the world. With an e-reader, you can't get as immersed in a book. If you're in public reading on your e-reader, it's easy to turn it off after a few pages and get back to life. There really isn't the sense of "losing yourself" when you're so easily
And while reports keep saying that reading has decreased, it is important to remember that only a hundred years ago only a small percentage of the population even had the ability to read. Only a few hundred years ago, only the elite had the ability to read. And only the elite could afford books. Now, it is available to everyone. When reading is taught to children as soon as they enter school, we take for-granted that this is not the way life has always been. The fact that most people can read is a very recent development. Reading is a gift that has evolved greatly in the last hundred years. It has gone from something available to only a few to something taught to everyone to something everyone can afford to do to available online and now it is available on the go.
While e-readers are a great way to try and encourage reading, I don't think anything can beat curling up with a book in hand and reading. E-readers make reading a hobby you can take anywhere and do take the strain out of holding a book the size of a refrigerator a la Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, they can't bring the personality and memories and fulfillment that a book does. It is also important that even the reading that you are doing now is a new thought. Taking the time to go to a blog or check the news is still reading. Being such a relatively new form of media, many people disregard the reading that is done online.
But what form of reading is "better"? Is reading decreasing? Are we devolving into an illiterate society?
I love books. I have a room in my house where three out of four walls have floor-to-ceiling bookshelves, each shelf filled with books. I have an office with two walls with the same floor-to-ceiling bookshelves. There is a joy that comes with reading a physical book and turning the pages. There's a satisfying feeling that comes with turning the final page of a book and feeling all of the emotions wash over you. When you have certain books that you turn to during tough times in your life, it is comforting to return to them and see the cracked spine and the well-worn pages that hold certain passages that mean something special to you. You can't get these feelings from an e-reader. Books can be signed by an author and held on display, they can have lines underlined, they can have thoughts written into the margins. They can have messages written in before you give it to a friend to read, pointing out your favorite parts of the book so friends can feel you reading along with them. Books are personable.
Can an e-reader ever replace the feeling emitted from a solid book in your hand? No. They can be convenient and allow a person to carry a library with them anywhere. They make trips to the doctor's office a bit less cumbersome. Instead of having to try and fit a 600+ novel into my bag, I can slip my tiny, almost weightless Kindle into my purse and have access to any book written. I know many people that buy an e-reader with the intention of getting back into reading only to use it for games, internet browsing, social networking and the like. When you have that internet connection, it does make the draw of reading a bit less. Why read a book when you can check facebook, read the news, and look up recipes for dinner? In a way, an e-reader just gives another outlet for people to be distracted and detach themselves from the world. With an e-reader, you can't get as immersed in a book. If you're in public reading on your e-reader, it's easy to turn it off after a few pages and get back to life. There really isn't the sense of "losing yourself" when you're so easily
And while reports keep saying that reading has decreased, it is important to remember that only a hundred years ago only a small percentage of the population even had the ability to read. Only a few hundred years ago, only the elite had the ability to read. And only the elite could afford books. Now, it is available to everyone. When reading is taught to children as soon as they enter school, we take for-granted that this is not the way life has always been. The fact that most people can read is a very recent development. Reading is a gift that has evolved greatly in the last hundred years. It has gone from something available to only a few to something taught to everyone to something everyone can afford to do to available online and now it is available on the go.
While e-readers are a great way to try and encourage reading, I don't think anything can beat curling up with a book in hand and reading. E-readers make reading a hobby you can take anywhere and do take the strain out of holding a book the size of a refrigerator a la Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, they can't bring the personality and memories and fulfillment that a book does. It is also important that even the reading that you are doing now is a new thought. Taking the time to go to a blog or check the news is still reading. Being such a relatively new form of media, many people disregard the reading that is done online.
Maybe it's just time to reevaluate what we consider to be the best form of reading. While I prefer books to e-readers and the internet, it is an arrogant thought to disregard them as a "valid" form of reading.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
The Doctor is back
Last night was the start of the newest season of Doctor who. And, honestly, I wasn't as impressed as I thought I was going to be.
I've been looking forward to the new season since BBC announced the newest companion in May and then when they released the teaser and promos in the last month. Watching "Living with the Ponds" definitely added to my excitement. BBC also had an all day marathon leading up to the premiere.
The episode started off really exciting, the Doctor and Amy and Rory were all abducted by Daleks. This is very, very bad as all Whovians know. Then the plot twist because the Daleks have captured the Doctor to save them. And the Doctor is sent to the place where the "ruined" Daleks are held because they can't destroy something they consider beautiful, pure hatred. All very exciting.
But then, things get kinda lame. Without sharing too much with those of you that haven't seen the episode, I felt the rest of the episode relied on the same gimmicks as the last two seasons. There was so much of the whole theme of forgetting that was throughout the previous seasons that I felt like we were just falling back on the same story. Season five was all about how the crack in the universe was causing Amy to forget things, people to be erased and forgotten, and eventually Amy remembered and brought them back. It was awesome! Season six was a bit more with the whole remember/forget theme. Amy wasn't real and forgot she was actually pregnant, had a baby, and didn't realize River was her daughter. Now, season seven is opening with the same theme. People forgot they were Daleks and forgot they were human. Sorry, Moffat, but I'm getting a bit tired of this theme. Isn't it time to start moving on?
The thing that really bothered me most of all about the season opener is (spoiler alert) the Daleks forgot about the Doctor. This bothers me not only because of the theme previously mentioned, but it also gets rid of one of the biggest villains in this 50 year old show. How can you make the Daleks forget about the Doctor?? I've been a little (read that VERY) annoyed that the writers have pretty much stopped including old characters. A slight remark here and there that alludes to the previous regenerations is nice, but why are old characters not included anymore? Angels have been erased from time so they're not happeneing, the story with the Master is finished, and now Daleks are gone. What about maybe including a previous companion or two? Maybe bring back Jack and the Face of Bo? K-9? Sarah Jane? SOMETHING!?!
I'm sorry Moffat, but I'm also tired of the same in-your-face writing that you're so fond of. All of season five, it was all about this crack. What is this crack? Guys, there's a crack here too! Guys, did you notice that Rory is erased from time by the crack?! Guys! The crack!! Season six he was all about River's story. Guys, don't you want to know who River is? What is River's story? Guys! Here's River's story! River is Melody! Bet you didn't see that coming! Oh! Doctor Who! What's the question? What's the answer?! AREN'T YOU GUYS EXCITED?!
Sorry, that writing is just really grating after a time. Remember season three? With the whole YANA thing? or season one with the entire Bad Wolf? What happened to that sort of subtle writing that would really drive, not only an episode, but the entire series? I'm far from giving up on a show I've been watching since I was six, but I am really tired of this gimmicky style of writing. Please, Moffat and fellow writers give me something more this season. Please bring back the Doctor Who I loved and still want to love the same way!
Wow... So this turned into more of a rant of Moffat's writing and stuff. Oh well. I feel like it needed to be said.
I've been looking forward to the new season since BBC announced the newest companion in May and then when they released the teaser and promos in the last month. Watching "Living with the Ponds" definitely added to my excitement. BBC also had an all day marathon leading up to the premiere.
The episode started off really exciting, the Doctor and Amy and Rory were all abducted by Daleks. This is very, very bad as all Whovians know. Then the plot twist because the Daleks have captured the Doctor to save them. And the Doctor is sent to the place where the "ruined" Daleks are held because they can't destroy something they consider beautiful, pure hatred. All very exciting.
But then, things get kinda lame. Without sharing too much with those of you that haven't seen the episode, I felt the rest of the episode relied on the same gimmicks as the last two seasons. There was so much of the whole theme of forgetting that was throughout the previous seasons that I felt like we were just falling back on the same story. Season five was all about how the crack in the universe was causing Amy to forget things, people to be erased and forgotten, and eventually Amy remembered and brought them back. It was awesome! Season six was a bit more with the whole remember/forget theme. Amy wasn't real and forgot she was actually pregnant, had a baby, and didn't realize River was her daughter. Now, season seven is opening with the same theme. People forgot they were Daleks and forgot they were human. Sorry, Moffat, but I'm getting a bit tired of this theme. Isn't it time to start moving on?
The thing that really bothered me most of all about the season opener is (spoiler alert) the Daleks forgot about the Doctor. This bothers me not only because of the theme previously mentioned, but it also gets rid of one of the biggest villains in this 50 year old show. How can you make the Daleks forget about the Doctor?? I've been a little (read that VERY) annoyed that the writers have pretty much stopped including old characters. A slight remark here and there that alludes to the previous regenerations is nice, but why are old characters not included anymore? Angels have been erased from time so they're not happeneing, the story with the Master is finished, and now Daleks are gone. What about maybe including a previous companion or two? Maybe bring back Jack and the Face of Bo? K-9? Sarah Jane? SOMETHING!?!
I'm sorry Moffat, but I'm also tired of the same in-your-face writing that you're so fond of. All of season five, it was all about this crack. What is this crack? Guys, there's a crack here too! Guys, did you notice that Rory is erased from time by the crack?! Guys! The crack!! Season six he was all about River's story. Guys, don't you want to know who River is? What is River's story? Guys! Here's River's story! River is Melody! Bet you didn't see that coming! Oh! Doctor Who! What's the question? What's the answer?! AREN'T YOU GUYS EXCITED?!
Sorry, that writing is just really grating after a time. Remember season three? With the whole YANA thing? or season one with the entire Bad Wolf? What happened to that sort of subtle writing that would really drive, not only an episode, but the entire series? I'm far from giving up on a show I've been watching since I was six, but I am really tired of this gimmicky style of writing. Please, Moffat and fellow writers give me something more this season. Please bring back the Doctor Who I loved and still want to love the same way!
Wow... So this turned into more of a rant of Moffat's writing and stuff. Oh well. I feel like it needed to be said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)