Define 'local'

One of the best ways to drive the local economy is to buy locally.  Not only locally, but independent as well.  Finding a small coffee shop instead of going to Starbucks on your way to work.  Going to the bar on the corner instead of Buffalo Wild Wings to watch the game.  Who needs twenty televisions with twenty different games on when you only want to watch one?  Obviously these are the best way to drive local economies because it stays within the area.  However, my question is:  what is the definition of local economy?  You have the independent businesses, but what about the chain businesses that have their headquarters in your town? 

There is one liquor store that is close to us that for a while I thought was a fairly large chain.  I had seen several stores around the Twin Cities and just figured that they were all over the state.  So I started to look into it earlier this week because I saw their headquarters sitting in a restaurant in one of the suburbs around here.  Come to find out, they have just six locations, five of which are in the Twin Cities.  So it's a local business that is doing well enough to expand a little bit.  Good on them.  With that said, there are true local and independent liquor stores where we live, and I have gone there from time to time.  You should always feel good about yourself if you contribute like that.

So small chains are good, but what about the national chains?  Best Buy and Target are two companies that got their start in the Twin Cities.  Both of their headquarters are still here too.  I know you can't really define them as a local business and definitely not independent because they are all over the country and expanding.  Best Buy has stores across the country, Target is starting to expand north of the border.  But because they had their start here, can you consider buying product from them supporting the local economy?  On the basic definition, no you can't.  They are too big to be considered a local business.  Why not?  You buy a television from Best Buy, the person selling it to you probably lives in the area.  The store starts to make money and they need to hire more people.  Where do they hire from?  The local area.  Local people make money.  And so on and so on down the line.

I know that the best thing to do is to buy at the local stores that are owned by people instead of corporations.  I can't help but feel though that if you buy from a big chain store that is in your neighborhood or town you are still helping out the local area and economy.  The money that you spend at a chain store may go to their corporate headquarters someplace else, but the more you spend at the local store, the more jobs you can help possibly create for that area.  

Contraction

While it is nice to see many cities have professional sports franchises, the true sports fan in me wants to see some of them go away.  It's not that I dislike the teams or the players or the cities, I want them to go away for the benefit of the game.  If some sports were to be contracted by one or two teams, it would make the sport better.  Sure, it would be bad for some of the fringe players because they would need to find a new occupation, but for a fan, it would make the sport more enjoyable.  With less teams, the talent pool rises.  It's addition by subtraction. 

Let's look at basketball.  I dislike basketball to begin with.  It is very, very boring.  With the exception of the college basketball NIT and national tournament, I rarely find myself settling in to watch a game.  This year, the Charlotte Bobcats have a record of 7-56.  The season winning percentage is .111, which is close to the worst winning percentage in NBA history.  They have lost twenty straight games.  Most sports analysts are saying that they have tanked the season just to get the best chance at the first pick (which the NBA has this weird lottery system set up for the top ten picks so there is no guarantee that they will get the first pick).  There is no point to having the Charlotte Bobcats in the league.  That is fifteen players that would be vying for spots on other rosters, essentially fifteen players around the league would be without a job if the Bobcats didn't exist.  This isn't the only season where the Bobcats have been irrelevant.  They have been around since 2004 and have made the playoffs just once.  So, if you take them away and contract one more team, let's say the Washington Wizards (just because this year they have the second worst record), then you have thirty players trying to make it on the remaining teams.  Not all those players are going to make it or some of them will and the bench players on the other teams will not be playing.  It makes the sport better by having less teams.

The NHL is a little different, but the theory is the same.  Take away two teams, not because of the quality of the players, but because of where the teams are.  Contract two teams and the quality of play gets even better than it is now.  If it is all about making money as a franchise, can you honestly tell me it was a good idea to create a professional team in Atlanta, GA?  I don't think so, and that is why they moved to Winnipeg.  And I know that the Phoenix Coyotes are doing well right and have made the playoffs for several seasons, but when I think of hockey my mind doesn't go to Arizona.  Or Florida for that matter.  And Florida has two teams!  How can America's penis have two teams?  

You cannot go around taking two teams away from every league, that just wouldn't be fair.  But what about the roster size?  Looking at an NFL roster, there are sixty two players.  Do you think that teams need a 'third down back'?  One guy getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for just a handful of plays each game.  Not worth it.  Cut him!  Just recently, the commissioner of the NFL was in Minneapolis because the state government is debating on whether or not to shell out the money for a new stadium.  He doesn't care about the Vikings' new stadium.  He cares about the team making him and his league money. 

While it may suck for these players or organizations to deal with contraction, for the fans of the sport it would beneficial.  From time to time, a game will be on and it will just be a blow out and those happen.  A game later, those exact same teams could go into over time and make an exciting game of it.  However, if there were less teams and better players on those teams, wouldn't the games be more enjoyable to watch on a constant basis?

Half Done

• Guns, Germs, and Steel:  The Fates of Human Societies
• Tell All
• Damned
• A Little Matter of Genocide:  Holocaust and Denial in the Americas from 1492 to Present
• Suttree 
• Founding Brothers:  The Revolutionary Generation

I made my way through the third book in my stack.  By far, this book 'Founding Brothers:  The Revolutionary Generation' was more difficult than the other books I have read so far.  It wasn't a thought provoking book or so detailed that pages needed to be read and re-read, it was just there.  And that was the problem.  It wasn't anything new or eye opening.  On top of there being no real new information that I learned, the chapters were quite long.  If the book you are reading doesn't hold your interest and you look at how long chapters are, it makes it very difficult to get through the book.

I'm not say that it was a bad book, it just wasn't for me.  It was well written, it was well researched and informative, and it was.....meh.  Oh well, you can't love every history book you read and this one falls into that catagory.  

Having Fun, Giving Away Pizzas

To bring back balance to the sports world force, I give you a link to this great article.  Now, if this doesn't make you laugh a little you are dead inside.  That's all there is to it.  Last year, I watched quite a bit of Kansas City Royals baseball games and no matter what the end results were, Jeff Francoeur always seemed to be smiling and having a great time.  He always found positives in the game, no matter if they won or lost.  That is professional.  That is a leader.  That is greatness that won't get you elected into the Hall of Fame (unfortunately).  The thing about him is the interaction with the fans that he has.  It doesn't matter if he plays at home or on the road, he takes everything in stride.  I'm pretty sure he would meet people for beers after games if someone would ask.  He jokes around, throws hundred dollar bills around for bacon dogs or beer, and makes it impossible to hate him.  You know, no big deal.

I read this article the day after my rage and rant post about some basketball players wanting to get paid to play in the Olympics and I'm pretty sure that if all pro athletes didn't get paid to play, Jeff Francoeur would still play ball.  You can tell he plays for love of the game and that the paycheck is just a hefty benefit.  I tip my hat to you, Jeff Francoeur.  Every team needs at least a player like this on their team.

More Than Olympic Gold

Ray Allen and Dwayne Wade need to shut their fucking mouths.  They are both in favor of NBA players being paid to play in the Olympics.  Here's an article on ESPN about it.  This is going to be a quick and vulgar post.  Hold onto your pants.  Kids, look away. 

Ray Allen is quoted as saying: 

You talk about the patriotism that guys should want to play for, but you (need to) find a way to entice the guys," Allen was quoted as saying in the interview. "It's not the easiest thing in the world if you play deep in the playoffs and then you get two, three weeks off and then you start training again to play more basketball, where it requires you to be away from home and in another country. It's fun, but your body does need a break.

That is complete bullshit and here's why.  Look at the majority of the sports that are played in the Olympics and they don't have paid athletes to start out with.  Hell, most athletes that are trying to make the Olympic teams would pay to make it on the team.  Think about all the sports that take place during either of the Olympic events and how many of them do not have professional levels?  The majority of the sports.

Now, basketball is not the only Olympic sport that has professional players.  It is, however, the first sport to have players come out and say that they need to be paid to play for their country.  That is how fucking selfish these players are.  This is how much of a 'me me me' type of sport basketball is.  I'm not the most patriotic person in the world, but if I had the ability to play my sport against the world's best, I wouldn't be begging to get paid.  I would be asking if I could pay to play.  I would be humbled at the opportunity that comes around once every four fucking years.

If this situation were to pick up any kind of steam with more greedy athletes wanting to get paid for playing and I were part of the Olympic Committee I would just stop pros from participating in the games.  What would be wrong with that?  I think that pros in the Olympics cheapens the games anyways.  They get paid to play every single year.  They shouldn't get the opportunity to play in the Olympics.  The Olympics are a special event.  They don't need over paid, privileged, self righteous pricks thinking that they need more money to play a game that most play for free.  And for national pride.  

Most of the Olympians train for three years just to get a shot at making the Olympics.   Not only do they train for all those years, but they give up everything to train.  Their families give up everything too.  Pro athletes should thank the amateur athletes for their efforts to be in the Olympics. 

Baseball Pilgrimage

I know that if you were to ask any baseball fan what their dream would be, everyone would say that they would want to see their team win the World Series.  And most would say that they would want to visit each stadium and take in a game live at each of those venues.  While it would be cool to do that, to see different cities across the country, to see the different aspects of each park, I think that every little thing that these cities and parks have would be lost in the overall goal of seeing them.  Why not aim for a smaller goal? 

For me, I would like to see the Tigers play in each of the American League Central parks.  More than that, I would love to see them win in all five of the parks.  So far, I've seen this happen in three of the five parks.  In Detroit, Kansas City, and Minneapolis.  Been to those three, saw the Tigers win in all three.  The only parks that are left are in Chicago and Cleveland. 

Chicago wouldn't be that difficult to get off this list.  A road trip would be seven hours from the Twin Cities to the Windy City.  Not only would I be able to see the Tigers take on the White Sox, I would take the time to go to Wrigley Field.  That is a place that every baseball fan needs to see before they tear it down.  Wrigley Field and Fenway Park:  the last bastions of greatness in baseball lore.  The hard part of this new found baseball pilgrimage is getting to Cleveland.  I suppose it isn't difficult getting to Cleveland, the difficult part is wanting to go.  Who wants to go to Ohio? 

I suppose on a side bar I would enjoy going to see the Tigers play the Brewers because of the history they have from the old AL East.  Plus, they are close to where we are now, and it's Milwaukee.  Known for their beer, brats, and overall good German food.  A place where your good health and your liver go to die.

My New Tiger

After the Detroit Tigers made the sad but right decision to not re-sign Magglio Ordonez, I was faced with the dilemma of finding a new player to be 'My Tiger'.  The easy way to go is to pick a heavy hitter or well established pitcher, but what is the fun in that?  Why follow the pack and pick someone that everyone else has as their Tiger?  I wrote about this a few months ago about waiting until the end of Spring Training to make my decision, and well, the time has come.  It's April and the Tigers' first game is less than a week away.  There were a few questions I had to ask myself.  Hitter or pitcher?  Prospect or active player?  Player drafted by the organization or player traded to the organization?  You see what I'm dealing with people?  Stressful times.

With pitchers, it's too shaky.  One bad year and they are traded or pitching in the minors.  It doesn't even have to be one year, it could be one or two months of bad pitching and they could be sent down.  One pitch and their elbow explodes and they won't pitch for another year, if ever at all.  Am I right, Joel Zumaya?  So, hitter or pitcher.

Prospects.  Listen, unless a prospect of the organization is making the team out of Spring Training, they are always on the trading block.  Who would want to pick a prospect as their Tiger if there is a chance they will be gone by year's end?  While active players always run the risk of being injured as they play such a long season, at least they are in the Show.  And established.  They don't normally have to fight their way onto the team.  Prospect or active player.

This honestly is the hardest part:  a player that was drafted or traded for by the organization.  As nice as it would be to just look at players drafted by the organization, teams need to improve any way possible.  That means trading, and there is nothing wrong with that.  Players that are traded for can be upgrades and can win the hearts of the team's city.  For example, Miguel Cabrera or Austin Jackson.  I don't look at them as previously playing for Florida or New York, I look at them as Tigers now.  They have established themselves as Tigers with their play.  In the end though, I would like to pick a player that the team has drafted.  It's nice to back a player that has been with the organization and moved up through the ranks.  Drafted or traded. 

There you have it:  a drafted player that is a hitter and on the active roster.  After narrowing it down, it became pretty clear who was going to be my Tiger.    Someone who I know is going to be with the organization for a long time.  Someone who is a team player and not all about me, me, me (although the team doesn't really have players like that).  I will support any Tiger player and cheer for them even when they move on to another organization.  But this player I don't see moving on to another team.  I think and hope he'll be with the Tigers for his career.

So, congratulations Alex Avila for being my Tiger from now until you either retire or are no longer with the organization.  A catcher is the cornerstone to any team and a good catcher makes good pitchers.  Good pitchers make good teams.  Good teams win championships.





Plus, the guy can grow a full beard between the start of a game and the end of a game.  

The Name Game

What's in a name?  Everything.  What's in a name for a sports team?  Even more.  The University of North Dakota's athletic teams use the name 'The Fighting Sioux' and has been met with controversy over and over again.  While there is one side defending the name saying that it honors the Sioux people, the other side says that it is demeaning because they are a people and not a mascot.  The word 'fighting' has been dropped and then picked back up again.  Then dropped.  Then picked back up.  Back and forth, back and forth.  In fact, Sioux tribes are even split with some bands having voted to allow UND to keep the name and other bands voting for them to change it.  In order for the name to be changed, the majority of the Sioux tribes and bands have to vote to change the mascot. 

I went to Central Michigan University for college where the mascot is the 'Chippewas'.  There was some controversy with the name and the helmets of the football team because they had a spear about thirty or forty years ago.  They changed the helmets and all was well.  CMU works closely with the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe and the tribe supports the college nickname and it has to do with that good working relationship the school and tribe have.  In fact, several years ago a member of the tribe was a starter on the football team and considered it an honor to play on a team that used the Chippewa name.  It has to do with the fact that they don't have the spear on the helmet, or a stereotypical white frat boy dressed up as an Indian chief.  In the end, work closely with those you wish to adorn as a mascot and all will be well.  Stay away from stereotyping the mascot and you will look like the good guys.  

For me, the main issue here with UND is the word 'fighting'.  Now, most people will point to the 'Fighting Irish' and say that Irish people don't have a problem with that, but what if it were the 'Drunken Irish'?  How would the the Irish feel about that?  The word 'fighting' indicates to me that this is how the majority of people view the Sioux people.  While historically they are seen as an aggressive tribe and fought the westward expansion and the people taking their land, you cannot tell me that it is okay to take that and use it as part of a mascot name.  Hell, I'd be aggressive towards people who are trying to take my land and place me on a reservation too.  And it's not like their people were ever massacred or anything like that.  While the name 'fighting Sioux' is on the border of being outright offensive, it is not even close to being the Redskins.  That team right there is the worst offender of offensive names.  There is also the Braves and the Indians in professional sports, and while they have been met with some controversy for other things, their names to me aren't as bad as Redskins.  

They do have an Indian head on their hockey jerseys which is also under scrutiny because it is seen as offensive by some.  Looking at the jerseys, it isn't as offensive to me as the Cleveland Indians' mascot that they have on their hats and jerseys.  In fact, it was designed by a member of a Chippewa tribe based in North Dakota.  So there's that.

In the end, it is not tough to say who is right and who is wrong in this situation.  If UND wants the scrutiny to go away, it is not very difficult to take a name away.  I would think that if they dropped the word 'fighting' and just kept the word 'Sioux' most of these issues would go away.  Personally, I think that if a team, professional or otherwise, is going to consider using a people for their mascot they need to work very closely with them and get the approval before moving forward with the name.  I would suggest that UND just drop the name and go with something that is linked with the state of North Dakota, but it's North Dakota.  They don't have a lot to go on.