Category: sports

bookmark_borderTulsi Gabbard appointed Director of National Intelligence

Posted on by Marissa

The good news continues! Tulsi Gabbard, one of the most outspoken advocates for liberty and individual rights in recent years, has been named Director of National Intelligence by Donald Trump. Gabbard used to be a Democrat, and served as a Congresswoman representing Hawaii from 2013-2021, before becoming an independent and then a Republican. 

Various people pointed out the poetic justice of Gabbard’s appointment, considering the fact that she was placed on a terror watch list for the “crime” of criticizing the Biden administration: 

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Young Americans for Liberty (@yaliberty)

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Rogan O’Handley (@dc_draino)

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Being Libertarian (@beingalibertarian)

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Fox News (@foxnews)

bookmark_borderMy top moments of the Olympics

Posted on by Marissa

The Olympics have come to an end nearly a week ago, and I am still recovering from the overstimulation and information overload that watching them entails. I have finally found the time and energy to put together a list of my most memorable moments of the Games, so without further ado, here they are:

The wonderful equestrian competitions at Versailles – I have a strong affinity for anything involving horses, so the equestrian competition is probably my favorite thing in any Olympic games. I enjoyed the equestrian events at these Olympics in particular because of their amazingly beautiful setting. It was so cool to see the Chateau de Versailles in the background during the dressage and jumping competitions, and to watch the cross-country competition that took horses and riders on a trek around the grounds. Some of the highlights were Laura Collett and London 52 setting an Olympic record for best-ever dressage score, and the U.S. show jumping team winning silver, making Laura Kraut the oldest female Olympic medalist since 1906.

Egyptian fencer Mohamed El Sayed – The bronze medal match in men’s epee was the first fencing competition that I watched in these Olympics, and El Sayed’s victory over Tibor Andrasfi of Hungary really left an impression on me. Turning on the TV one afternoon towards the beginning of the Games, I happened to catch the end of the match and El Sayed’s exuberant celebration. This was also my first glimpse of the amazing venue, the Grand Palais, with elegant patterns projected onto its high ceilings and competitors entering via a balcony and proceeding down a sweeping staircase to the piste.

Stephen Nedoroscik’s pommel horse routine – How could I not include this? The world fell in love with the nerdy pommel horse specialist while watching him wait nearly three hours to perform his routine during the team competition. Endearingly, he passed the time by going through the motions of his routine in his now-famous “pommel horse dance,” as well as by solving a Rubik’s cube. The most hilarious moment, in my opinion, was when the team was screaming and jumping up and down to celebrate Brody Malone’s strong routine, with Stephen sitting solemnly in the background, looking up just long enough to crack the briefest of smiles. Ultimately, not only did he clinch the bronze medal for the U.S. team, but he won an individual bronze on pommel horse as well.

Tom Daley ending his career on a high note – The legendary British diver won silver in the synchronized platform competition with his partner, Noah Williams. Already a veteran of 3 Olympics and a gold medalist in the 2021 Tokyo games, Daley returned to diving at the request of his 5-year-old son, Robbie. I found it endearing when Noah said, in a post-competition interview, that the best part of the Olympics was getting to compete in front of Tom’s family, and that the thing that made him most nervous was the possibility of disappointing them.

Getting to know David Popovici – I initially didn’t know much about this Romanian swimmer, and didn’t particularly care about or root for him. But NBC’s “puff piece” about him made me a fan. I found his nickname of “Chlorine Daddy” hilarious, I loved the scenes of Bucharest that they showed during the piece, and I really admire Popovici’s unabashed sense of pride in being from Romania. He ended up winning the gold in the 200 meter freestyle, as well as the bronze in the 100 meter freestyle.

Surprise gold for Sarah Sjostrom – This Swedish swimmer won gold in both the 100 meter and 50 meter freestyle at the relatively advanced age of 30. She was exuberant during a post-race interview, explaining that she wasn’t even planning to race the 100 meters, but her coach insisted she give it a try. “I didn’t think a thirty-year-old woman could win this event,” she said.

Kayak cross – This was a new sport in the 2024 Olympics, involving kayakers racing down a whitewater rapids like course. The competitors had to navigate around slalom gates, were required to flip upside down in their kayaks in the “roll zone,” and could push and shove each other out of the way. Although I had never heard of this sport before, I found it highly unique and entertaining and couldn’t stop watching whenever it showed up on my TV screen.

An emotional victory for Novak Djokovic– I am usually not interested in tennis at all, but I have been a fan of Djokovic ever since he was banned from competing in the Australian Open because of declining the covid vaccine. An Olympic gold medal was the one accomplishment missing from his legendary career, until now. One could tell by his emotional reaction how important the victory was to him. Even if you’re not a tennis fan, Djokovic’s gold medal was not only a triumph for him individually but also for medical freedom.

Alice D’Amato making history for Italy – As much as I like Simone Biles, Suni Lee, and their amazing teammates, the U.S. female gymnasts are so dominant that it is not really exciting when they win. I always enjoy rooting for underdogs, and Alice D’Amato of Italy definitely qualified as such going into the balance beam final. Amidst falls and mistakes by the favorites, Alice took the gold with her beautiful routine, becoming the first ever Italian woman to win a gold medal in gymnastics.

Gold for Italian skeet shooting team – When the Italian pair of Diana Bacosi and Gabriele Rossetti won gold in the mixed team skeet shooting competition, their enthusiasm was contagious. I loved seeing them standing atop the podium and singing along to their national anthem. Afterward, Rossetti said that he dedicated the medal to his late father and coach, Bruno. “We believed in each other and that made the difference,” he added.

The amazing call of the women’s cycling pursuit – Cycling is another sport that I’m usually not really into. But Steve Schlanger’s play by play commentary made it impossible not to be excited during the women’s team pursuit final, which was won by the U.S. team of Kristen Faulkner, Chloe Dygert, Lily Williams, and Jennifer Valente. “A lung-busting, heart-stopping surge!” he exclaimed. “And it’s going to be team USA! An epic gold medal! A breathtaking 4-minute masterpiece, as American cycling rides to another glorious golden moment in Paris!”

An unexpected Olympic experience for Noah Lyles – Admittedly, I’ve never been a huge fan of Lyles. He is one of those athletes who wins almost every time he competes, and I have also found him arrogant and conceited. But I was impressed that Lyles managed to win bronze in the 200 meters despite having covid. It is difficult to accomplish even mundane tasks when you feel lousy, let alone win an Olympic medal. Although this was not the way that Lyles, or anyone for that matter, envisioned his Olympic experience, it made him seem more human, and somehow made me like him more. Plus, the image of Lyles collapsing to the track in exhaustion after the race was a perfect metaphor for how I felt as the Olympics came to a close – tired, depleted, not entirely happy with the way that things went, but glad for it to be over, and proud of myself for handling it as well as I did.

bookmark_borderThe agony and the ecstasy of the Olympics for me as an autistic person

Posted on by Marissa

For me as an autistic person, the Olympics is one of the most exciting things in the world, and also one of the most torturous. Sports are one of my special interests, so one would think that the Olympics would be heaven for me, with two and a half weeks of non-stop coverage of gymnastics, swimming, diving, track and field, equestrian, fencing, shooting, and more. But this is the exact reason why the Olympics have the potential to become my own personal hell. A hell filled with overwhelm, stress, chaos, mental exhaustion, and information overload.

I will start by explaining why I love Olympic sports so much. I think what I like most about watching sports is that they have clear procedures, rules, and processes for determining the winner. Every sport has a system, whether that consists of judges giving scores for each competitor’s routine, a horse and rider receiving faults for each rail they knock down, or simply a clock determining who crosses the finish line first. No one knows in advance who the winner is going to be, but one can expect that the competition will unfold according to a familiar and predictable process. For me, watching a sports competition means watching it in its entirety, from beginning to end. It means watching all the coverage that is available. I love to watch the entire process unfold, from the opening video montage, to the heats with dozens of competitors that no one has ever heard of, to the semifinals, to the finals, to the post-race interviews of the winner(s).

As anyone who has glimpsed the Olympics broadcast schedule knows, the sheer amount of coverage is so huge that it is impossible for one person to watch it all. And this makes my brain go crazy. I have a perfectionistic, completionist mindset, to put it mildly. I am a very all-or-nothing person. If I am into something, I tend to become really obsessed with it. If I like something, I am not content merely to have a little bit of it; I want all of it. I find it preferable not to do something at all, than to do it in a way that falls short of my standards of completeness. So when the Olympics come around every two years, I don’t want to miss any of the coverage. I want to watch it all. But because of the enormous amount of coverage, missing some of it is unavoidable. The result is having to make excruciating, nearly impossible decisions about which events to watch and which to miss.

Leading up to this Olympics, I knew that it was going to be a challenge. I knew that difficult decisions would need to be made. I knew that I would likely need to set my alarm in the morning, that I might need to record certain events to watch later, and that I would have to minimize (and carefully time) outings outside of my house. But I was up for a challenge. I was mentally prepared, and I was excited. I had spent hours upon hours catching up on all of the Olympic trials coverage that I had missed over the past couple of months due to my work schedule. I had worked hard to put myself in a position that would give me the best possible chance at success.

Watching the hour-long intro show that aired before the very first events of the Games – preliminary soccer matches that took place two days before the opening ceremony – I was happy and optimistic. The video montages were exciting and the commentary interesting. Everything was elegant and appealing, from the NBC studio in Paris, to the pictograms that represent each sport, to the fonts and graphics used during the broadcast. It was particularly cool to see images of the statues, monuments, and famous buildings in Paris, and I was hopeful that watching the Games unfold among these iconic landmarks would be somewhat healing after the traumatic events involving statues that I’ve detailed at length in previous blog posts. 

But then, shortly before the opening ceremony on Friday, June 26, I checked the TV listings for the following day (Saturday) in preparation for planning a watching strategy. And what I saw made me sick to my stomach. Watching these Olympics was not going to be a challenge; it was going to be impossible.

The competitions started as early as 3:30 in the morning and continued throughout the entire morning and afternoon, usually on 3 or even 4 networks at once. The idea of waking up at 3:30 seemed ridiculous, but recording these events would not work either, because there was no window of sports-free time later in the day in which to watch them. And missing out on these events would be completely unacceptable. The sports taking place at ungodly hours weren’t limited to the ones that I (comparatively) don’t care much about, such as soccer, handball, rugby, cycling, table tennis, badminton, and wrestling. Nor were they merely “borderline” sports like rowing, kayaking, and archery. The ridiculously early sports included my favorites, such as equestrian, diving, swimming, and gymnastics. Missing those would defeat the entire purpose of watching the Olympics.

In other words, even after narrowing down the sports as much as I possibly could, even after eliminating all but the absolute must-watch events… the amount was still not even close to being manageable. 

So my brain exploded. I screamed at the top of my lungs, again and again and again. I pounded my feet on the floor. I punched the walls and the couch. I threw various objects. 

After this explosion of rage, I made the decision to boycott the Olympics. Given that NBC’s coverage choices made it impossible for me to watch in a way that was acceptable to me, I preferred not to watch at all. I was so angry that the mere thought of the Olympics filled me with disgust. 

The following day, I woke up feeling like someone was hammering an ice pick into my forehead. It was the worst pain I have ever experienced. Not only was I completely unable to function, but merely existing was agony. The pain made it impossible to sleep, and neither Tylenol nor aspirin did anything to relieve it. The only activity that was possible for me to do was lying in bed in excruciating pain. The entire day was essentially lost. Watching the Olympics, even if I had changed my mind and decided to do so after all, was impossible. 

But as night fell, the agony finally abated. I realized that the Olympics primetime show was starting soon. And I decided to put it on. Watching the abridged versions of the day’s competitions, knowing that I had missed out on the full, live versions, was a foreign and bizarre experience for me. It was simultaneously torturous and interesting and enjoyable at the same time.

When the broadcast ended, I pulled up the TV listings for the following day. The feelings of overwhelm and frustration started to return. Gymnastics and equestrian were again slated for 4:00 in the morning, followed shortly thereafter by swimming and then archery and then more swimming. I could set my alarm for 6:00 and miss only one session of gymnastics qualifying, I thought to myself. I could set it for 8:00 and miss two sessions but at least catch archery. Or I could set it for 10:15 to ensure that I at least woke up in time for the second session of swimming. I went to bed feeling unsettled, but not nearly as out-of-control as I had felt the night before. 

Miraculously, I woke up, without having set an alarm, at 7:30. Turning on the TV mid-competition, and therefore missing the beginning, is completely at odds with the way that my brain works, but that is exactly what I did. With the early morning sun casting beams of light across my living room, I watched the heats of the men’s individual medley and heard the crowd’s chanting for Leon Marchand reverberate through the stadium. Over the next few hours, I flipped back and forth between channels, catching portions of swimming, gymnastics, archery, equestrian, shooting, basketball, canoe slalom, and skateboarding.

It was painful to watch the third subdivision of women’s gymnastics qualifications, knowing that I had missed the first two, and it was similarly torturous to watch the cross-country equestrian competition, knowing that I had missed the dressage round in which a competitor had set a record for the best-ever score. But I enjoyed getting to experience a variety of different sports, and getting to watch them live, at the time that they were actually unfolding. I enjoyed switching from channel to channel to check out what was happening. I enjoyed watching gymnasts of all different countries, some of whom I’m not familiar with, and some of whom I recognized because they competed in the NCAA. I liked the introductory video to the equestrian competition, which explained the scoring system. I enjoyed the fencing competition, held in the magnificent, theater-like venue called the Grand Palais. And I even enjoyed catching a few minutes of skateboarding and basketball, even though these are not sports that I’m usually super interested in. 

It turns out that losing an entire day, although excruciating in terms of both the physical pain and the sports missed, was necessary. The way that I had been approaching things was not working, and my body and brain forced me to stop. Losing an entire day allowed me to reset, to approach the Olympics with a completely different attitude, and to rediscover what had made sports my special interest in the first place.

Because in addition to the fact that they have systems and rules, I love sports because they make me feel connected to the world around me. I love to watch competitions unfold in real time, knowing that others all over the world are watching them as well. I love that no one knows what the outcome is going to be, and that everyone simultaneously finds out the result in real time. It makes me happy to know that I am watching sports together with millions of people, even though I don’t know them and am not interacting with them

With previous Olympics, I watched as many live sports as humanly possible, and I recorded the rest. Inevitably, the recordings would pile up to a point where I felt that I had no choice but to stay up late trying to get them watched. Inevitably, the second round of a competition would come on before I had a chance to watch the recording of the first round, and I would have to either watch the rounds out of order, or record the second round too. Inevitably, I would begin to cram in a few minutes of recordings here and there whenever I had a spare moment, causing me to miss the beginnings of live competitions when they invariably started earlier than I expected, and also causing me to miss out on the experience of watching Olympic sports that I wouldn’t necessarily have sought out. In general, this way of watching the Olympics created a jumbled, chaotic sports mess that was no longer enjoyable. The sports had gradually transformed over the years, from something fun into something that needed to get watched, a task that had to get done, an item on my to-do list that I aimed to get rid of as quickly as possible. Paradoxically, as I became more and more into sports, the thing that made me enjoy sports in the first place, had been lost.

Over the past couple of weeks, I have been getting up at a reasonable hour and simply watching whichever sports I can, while forcing myself to be okay with missing the rest. Watching the Olympics with this new philosophy has been simultaneously agonizing and exhilarating. Doing anything in a way that falls short of perfection is completely at odds with the way that my brain works. It is a situation in which no option feels right, but I feel that this one is better than the alternatives of either missing out on the Games entirely, or completely destroying both my sleep schedule and my brain in a futile attempt to catch everything. I am proud of myself for being able to adopt this new approach, because I know that the past version of me wouldn’t be able to do so. I am not an Olympic athlete, but in a way, I am doing the impossible every day of these Olympics, and I think that is pretty impressive.

bookmark_borderIn praise of Aaron Rodgers

Posted on by Marissa

New York Jets (and former Green Bay Packers) quarterback Aaron Rodgers recently went on Joe Rogan’s podcast and shared his views on vaccine mandates and standing up for what he believes in. 

“I’m going to continue talking about this because it’s important to me. I don’t want the memories to be lost. I don’t want what I went through to get brushed over… Look at my situation, I lost friends, allies in the media, millions of dollars in sponsorship because I talked about what worked for me in my own beliefs and my own health reasons why I didn’t get vaccinated.”

I agree with Rodgers 100%. It seems that, for the most part, people have forgotten about the violations of people’s fundamental rights that were committed in the name of fighting the Covid pandemic. I will never forget the fact that my hometown of Boston decided that people like me would not be allowed into restaurants, bars, gyms, theaters, museums, or other indoor public places. The signs in restaurant windows, announcing that proof of vaccination was required to enter, will forever be seared into my memory. This policy was immoral and wrong. The people who enacted it should not be allowed to just continue with their lives, and move on to other issues, with no negative consequences.

Rodgers is right. The memories should never be lost. Violating people’s rights should never be brushed over. 

Rodgers continued: 

“You stand for something, you stand courageously for what you believe in or the opposite side of that is saying nothing or being a coward. I wasn’t willing to do that. Say whatever you want about the way I went about doing it…

In the end, I believe what I did and what I stand for is a tough position to be in. But I think it’s (an) important responsibility to continue to speak up and use my voice to give other people the permission to stand up as well because there’s a lot of people that believe a lot of the things that I believe in that don’t have the opportunity to do it, don’t have the courage to do it, don’t have the platform to do it in. I feel like I can speak for some of those people and hold the line to some of those people regardless what crosshairs that puts me in with certain media members.”

I absolutely love these sentiments.

Amen.

Unfortunately but unsurprisingly, the article about Rodgers and Rogan’s interview, which was originally published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and also published on Yahoo News, demonstrated the bias that is typical of media outlets. 

The article states:

“Rodgers claimed that people ‘didn’t do critical thinking’ during the pandemic and alleged that ‘as more research comes out, there’s more papers published in very reputable scientific publications that talk about all of the things I was stumping for and talking about.’ What exact scientific publications he was referring to wasn’t clear.”

The fact that people didn’t do critical thinking during the pandemic is not merely something that Rodgers is claiming; it is true. Far too many people failed to think critically during the pandemic, as demonstrated by the widespread enactment of, and public support for, policies that violate people’s rights. 

It’s also unnecessary to mention that it is unclear which scientific publications Rodgers refers to. The author could have simply omitted this sentence. It doesn’t add any information or explanation but is merely the author’s way of expressing his skepticism of, and disdain for, Rodgers. And expressing one’s opinions or feelings about the subject of an article is exactly what journalists should avoid doing.

Another thing mentioned in the article is that Rodgers lost his weekly appearances on “The Pat McAfee Show” due to his controversy with Jimmy Kimmel. This angers me, because Rodgers didn’t do anything wrong and does not deserve to be punished in any way for his comments on Kimmel. As I explained in an earlier post, Kimmel is the one who behaved wrongly in this situation, and therefore the one who deserves to be punished. Kimmel deserves to lose his late-night talk show more than Rodgers deserves to lose his radio appearances.

bookmark_borderDouble standards

Posted on by Marissa

I recently came across an article about a hockey commentator who is facing widespread criticism for making fun of a player’s name during last night’s game between the Golden Knights and Oilers. 

Commentator John Anderson said: “13 minutes to go, we’re in the second. Zach Whitecloud, what kind of name is Whitecloud? Great name if you’re a toilet paper. His first goal of the playoffs.”

Zach Whitecloud is a defenseman for the Vegas Golden Knights. He is also the first NHL player from the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation.

Unsurprisingly given today’s climate of political correctness, Anderson was widely criticized on social media, and as a result apologized profusely. In response, Whitecloud said he hoped the situation could be a ‘learning experience for everyone.”

The question that immediately comes to my mind is: would the public reaction have been the same, and would Anderson have issued the same apology, if Whitecloud was of European descent?

The presumption behind the article, and behind the social media criticism of Anderson, seems to be that Anderson’s comment was insensitive, offensive, and wrong because he was making fun of an indigenous name. 

Not that making fun of people’s names is wrong, period. 

Not that people should be kind and respectful to others as a general rule.

But rather that Anderson should have known that Whitecloud was indigenous and therefore should have refrained from poking fun at him.

Personally, I found the joke mildly amusing.

If you want to take the position that people should never make jokes about others’ names, because doing so isn’t nice, that is reasonable.

But I don’t get the sense that Anderson’s critics are taking that position. I get the sense that double standards are in play here, that people are bashing Anderson so harshly because he had the audacity to poke fun at a player who is indigenous. I highly doubt that people would have been similarly outraged – or outraged at all for that matter – if a European player had been made fun of.

If you’re going to criticize Anderson for making fun of Whitecloud’s name, do so because making fun of people’s names isn’t a nice thing to do. Don’t do so just because Whitecloud happens to be indigenous. 

bookmark_borderKirk Cousins and media bias about vaccines

Posted on by Marissa

I am a strong supporter of medical freedom, which means that in my opinion, people should be 100% free to decide which (if any) medical procedures to undergo, with no pressure or coercion from anyone else. This principle applies to the Covid vaccine as well: choosing to get the vaccine and choosing not to get the vaccine are equally good and equally valid choices and need to be treated as such. 

The media gets this concept wrong all too frequently, and this article about Vikings QB Kirk Cousins is a great example:

First of all, the article, by Ryan Young at Yahoo Sports, makes the mistake of describing Cousins as “antivax” because he chose not the get the vaccine. This has become an extremely common way of characterizing people who opt against the vaccine, but it is not accurate. To be anti-vaccine means exactly that: to be against vaccines in general or the Covid vaccine in particular. But choosing not to do something yourself is not the same as being against it. One can consider it good that something exists as an option, without thinking that everyone should be forced to do it against their will. This concept has proven surprisingly difficult for people to comprehend. I’m sure that Cousins, as well as most people who opt against the vaccine, have no problem with other people getting the vaccine if they want to. 

Secondly, I take issue with the wording that Cousins “doesn’t want to get his coronavirus vaccine.” This makes it sound as if Cousins is immaturely and irrationally refusing to do something that he is supposed to do. In reality, he is making a medical decision that he has every right to make. Absent evidence to the contrary, one should assume that Cousins made his decision deliberately and thoughtfully. Additionally, this might sound overly picky, but it’s technically wrong for people to use the phrasing, “his vaccine” or “her vaccine” or “your vaccine” when referring to someone who is not getting the vaccine. This makes it sound like there is a special vaccine dose allocated for that particular person, just waiting for him/her to come and get it. But if someone isn’t getting the vaccine, there is no such thing as “his vaccine.”

Third, it is wrong to say that the Vikings have the “NFL’s worst vaccination rate.” The Vikings may have the lowest vaccination rate, but that is not the same as worst. Getting the vaccine is an equally good choice as not getting the vaccine. Therefore, it’s just as good to have a team with 0% of the players vaccinated as it is to have a team with 100% of the players vaccinated.

The article talks about how Cousins has said he’s willing to hold team meetings outside (even in winter) and/or surround himself with plexiglass. Reporters questioned Cousins about why he “wouldn’t simply get vaccinated instead of going through such great lengths to avoid getting his shot.” But in my opinion, this is the wrong way of looking at things. To me, holding meetings outside or using plexiglass barriers are easier and less burdensome measures for avoiding Covid infection compared to getting a medical procedure. A more reasonable question would be: why would someone get a medical procedure just so that they can avoid having to practice physical distancing?

In conclusion, the media needs to respect medical freedom, as opposed to pressuring people to get the Covid vaccine. The media needs to present issues in a neutral way, as opposed to operating under the assumption that getting the vaccine is good and opting against it is bad. Too many articles essentially operate as opinion pieces, allowing the author’s presumptions about the vaccine to color the way that news is presented.

bookmark_borderHockey and freedom

Posted on by Marissa

There are few things more beautiful in the eyes of a hockey fan than hats raining down onto the ice. Last night’s Bruins win was significant not only because we’re off to a 1-0 advantage over the Islanders in the series, and not only because David Pastrnak scored his second career playoff hat trick, but also because it was the first day since the Covid-19 pandemic that sports were allowed to be played before full-capacity crowds in Boston. Even though I only watched the game on TV, I could feel the jubilant energy of the fans emanating through my TV screen, and my heart was warmed by the sight of the ice crew diligently scooping up the dozens upon dozens of hats that fans had thrown onto the ice in Pasta’s honor.

Another thing that is beautiful in my eyes as a supporter of individual rights and liberty is the fact that TD Garden does not require Covid-19 vaccination or testing in order to attend games. The joy from seeing the approximately 18,000 fans would have been tainted and hollow if accompanied by the knowledge that they had been required to undergo a medical procedure in order to be there. No one should be required to have any medical procedure in order to live his or her life, and attending sports is part of that. Yes, going to a game in an arena packed with yelling, cheering fans presents some risk of catching the virus, but that is a risk that people have the right to take if they wish. Yes, some people would feel more comfortable attending games if they knew that their fellow fans had been vaccinated and/or tested, and might choose not to attend absent these requirements, but that is exactly the way that it should be. People should do the activities they are comfortable doing, and avoid the activities they are not comfortable doing, as opposed to demanding that other people’s bodily integrity be violated in order to make themselves feel safer.

A win for both the Bruins and individual liberty is a beautiful thing indeed.

bookmark_borderTom Brady did not “get a pass” for endorsing Trump

Posted on by Marissa

USA Today columnist Nancy Armour recently published a deeply wrong, racist, and offensive column in which she claims that Tom Brady “has gotten an undeserved pass for his past support of Donald Trump” because he is white. Contrary to Armour’s claim, Brady has not gotten a pass because he is white. He has gotten a pass because, well, he did nothing wrong. As difficult as this may be to comprehend for those who subscribe to the intolerant ideology of political correctness, people have the right to endorse any political candidates they want. It is disturbing that expressing support for Trump is presumed to be something morally wrong, for which a person deserves to be punished.

“How mighty white of him,” Armour writes with respect to the fact that Brady once had a MAGA hat in his locker and endorsed Trump in the 2016 election. “Brady’s ability to enter and exit the debate at his choosing, to shield himself from accountability, is the height of white privilege. As this country grapples with the far reaches of systemic racism, look no further than Brady, for whom the expectations, and allowances granted, will always be different.”

The column also quotes author David Leonard, who says that “Whiteness is the benefit of the doubt… He reaps the benefits that we as white Americans reap each and every day in different contexts.”

Silly me. I thought that whiteness was a skin color. Both Leonard’s allegation and Armour’s “how mighty white of him” comment are blatantly racist.

Armour’s column is based on an idea first put forth by Shannon Sharpe on his Fox Sports show. The talk show host alleged that Brady “got a pass” for having praised Trump, while a hypothetical black athlete who praised Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan would have been “canceled.”

I disagree with this claim. In today’s society, white athletes, and white people in general, are overall subjected to harsher criticism than their black counterparts. Additionally, public figures who express support for right-leaning causes or candidates are criticized much more harshly in our society than those who express support for left-wing causes and candidates. As evidence of this, one need look no further than the near-unanimous support across all professional sports for the Black Lives Matter movement. Not once has any athlete, or public figure, been criticized for supporting this movement, despite the fact that its supporters have perpetrated widespread and horrific destruction of cities, businesses, and irreplaceable works of art.

“Brady has been allowed to divorce himself from it while Black athletes are made to own their views in perpetuity,” Armour writes of the QB’s past Trump support. “There is no end in sight to Colin Kaepernick’s blackballing, even though his protests to bring attention to police brutality of Black and brown people have proven to be an alarm we should not have ignored.” This contention ignores the fact that Kaepernick’s behavior – wearing socks depicting police officers as pigs and demanding (successfully) that Nike stop producing a patriotic sneaker with a Betsy Ross flag on it – is reprehensible and his “blackballing” therefore completely justified. And the fact that despite this behavior, Kaepernick is hailed almost unanimously as a hero and a victim of unjust treatment, while Brady is harshly and incessantly criticized, as the existence of Armour’s column demonstrates. 

Armour describes it as a privilege that Brady has not been asked about his views on the January 6th protest and that he is “not asked to speak for white America.” She writes: “Even Brady’s aversion to talking about politics or current events is itself a form of privilege. Like other white athletes, Brady is seen as an individual in a way minority athletes never are.” Leonard echoes these sentiments, saying: “Seeing sports and living sports as an uncontested space is the privilege of whiteness. It’s the privilege of being a man. It’s the privilege of being a heterosexual athlete. That is a luxury that Black athletes and other marginalized and disempowered athletes have never been afforded.”

First of all, there is no such thing as “white America,” and it is racist and think and speak in such terms. Additionally, I disagree with the allegation that minority athletes, female athletes, and gay athletes are never seen as individuals. I also disagree with the claim that it is a privilege and a luxury to be seen as an individual or to have the choice of whether or not to discuss current events. Being able to express one’s views on politics and current events, or alternatively, to opt not to do so, is a right, not a privilege.

Armour closes by criticizing Brady’s “moral cowardice.” She writes that “celebrating what he’s done while turning a blind eye to what he has not is a privilege Brady does not deserve.” Actually, it is Armour who is demonstrating moral cowardice. And having one of the nation’s most well-known and widely-read newspapers as a platform from which to spew her pompous, mean-spirited, racist nonsense is a privilege that she does not deserve.

Thankfully, Fox Radio host Clay Travis had some sensible words to say about this situation. “Do [74.2] million Americans who voted for Donald Trump have to answer for their support?” he asked. “That’s what America is. It’s a democracy. I voted for Donald Trump… Nobody ever has to apologize when they support a Democratic or left-wing politician in the world of sports. Why in the world should Tom Brady have to apologize for supporting the former president of the United States? I think that’s what makes American sports so fantastic. It cuts across our racial, our ethnic, our socioeconomic, our political divisions and brings us all together. And I hope on Sunday we can all sit down, grab a beer, have some nachos, and enjoy one of the greatest games of all time regardless of who the politicians are supported by the players on the field.”

Amen to that.

bookmark_borderUFC President Dana White stands up for free speech

Posted on by Marissa

Dana White, the president of the UFC, is an example of how sports leagues ought to handle the issue of free speech on controversial topics.

In a press conference after a victory, fighter Colby Covington called the Black Lives Matter movement “a complete sham.” He continued, “It’s a joke. They’re taking these people that are complete terrorists. They’re taking these people that are criminals. These aren’t people that are hard-working Americans, blue-collar Americans. These are bad people. They’re criminals. They shouldn’t be attacking police. If you’re breaking the law and you’re threatening the cops with weapons, you deserve to get what you get. Law enforcement protects us all. If we don’t have law enforcement, it’d be the wild, wild West.” He also called a fellow fighter who supports BLM a communist, a Marxist, and someone who “hates America” and “stands for criminals.”

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. Covington could perhaps have phrased things a bit more diplomatically, but I agree overall with his sentiments. Of course, given the political environment of 2020, fellow UFC fighters and sponsors promptly erupted in outrage, calling Covington and his comments “flat-out racist” and “disgusting.”

To his credit, White defended athletes’ freedom of speech. “These guys all have their own causes, things, their own beliefs,” he said. “We don’t muzzle anybody here. We let everybody speak their mind. I don’t know what he said that was racist. I don’t know if I heard anything racist that he said.”

More coaches, teams, and leagues should adopt similar attitudes. True diversity and inclusion require tolerance and acceptance of a wide range of political views. With athletes almost unanimously expressing support for the BLM movement, usually with the wholehearted endorsement of their teams and leagues, it is important to consider the rights of those with dissenting views. If athletes can speak out in favor of BLM, fairness requires that they also be free to speak out against BLM if that is how they feel. 

bookmark_borderCyclist suspended for pro-Trump tweets

Posted on by Marissa

In the latest example of intolerance practiced in the name of tolerance by today’s politically correct society, cyclist Quinn Simmons was suspended for tweeting his support of Donald Trump. 

According to ESPN/Associated Press, the “controversial” tweets began when Dutch journalist Jose Been tweeted: “My dear American friends, I hope this horrible presidency ends for you. And for us as (former?) allies too. If you follow me and support Trump, you can go. There is zero excuse to follow or vote for the vile, horrible man.”

Simmons, the 2019 junior road race world champion, responded “Bye” with a dark-skinned hand emoji. 

When someone else tweeted, “Apparently a Trumper,” Simmons responded, “That’s right” with an American flag emoji. 

His team, Trek-Segafredo, said in a statement: “Trek-Segafredo is an organization that values inclusivity and supports a more diverse and equitable sport for all athletes. While we support the right to free speech, we will hold people accountable for their words and actions. Regrettably, team rider Quinn Simmons made statements online that we feel are divisive, incendiary, and detrimental to the team, professional cycling, its fans, and the positive future we hope to help create for the sport. He will not be racing for Trek-Segafredo until further notice.”

They added in a separate statement that Simmons “was not suspended because of his political views. He was suspended for engaging in conversation on Twitter in a way that we felt was conduct unbefitting a Trek athlete.”

And the team’s manager said that Simmons “has a bright future as a professional athlete if he can use this opportunity to grow as a person and make a positive contribution for a better future for cycling.”

According to Cycling Weekly, the organization Diversity in Cycling alleged that the use of the dark-skinned emoji was a form of “blackface” and pompously lectured him to “listen and learn.”

“To those who found the color of the emoji racist, I can promise that I did not mean for it to be interpreted that way,” Simmons responded. “I would like to apologize to everyone who found this offensive as I strongly stand against racism in any form. To anyone who disagrees with me politically, that is fine. I won’t hate you for it. I only ask the same.”

In my opinion, this is a perfect example of much ado about nothing. Simmons expressed his support for Trump, something that he has every right to do. When one considers the wide range of opinions, thoughts, insults, and profanities that exist in the vast world of social media, Simmons’s tweets are really pretty innocuous. He did not attack or insult anyone, use profanity, or call anyone names. Interpreting the dark-skinned emoji as racist is a stretch and is certainly not an interpretation that would occur to me upon seeing this tweet. There wasn’t any need for Simmons to apologize, as he didn’t do anything wrong. By suspending him, his team went way overboard and veered into the realm of hypocrisy. Any organization that truly values inclusivity and diversity would embrace people with varied political beliefs. There was nothing incendiary or divisive about Simmons’s tweets, unless by divisive the team meant demonstrating ideological diversity, in which case being divisive is not a bad thing. There is no need for Simmons to “grow as a person” or “listen and learn,” as he has already demonstrated good character and courage by daring to voice unpopular views. It is the practitioners of political correctness run amok who need to listen and learn about what diversity truly means.