What a sign it is that a horse – not just any horse, mind you, but Barbaro, the horse that shattered it’s leg some two, maybe three years ago – has become a symbol of the right to die movement.
That’s right, no longer is there just a right to life movement, but also a right to die movement (I fully expect for there to be a right-to-feel-passive or a right to wear-mauve movement to spring up any day now).
For those of who you may have missed this story, Barbaro – a horse that died over a year ago – is set to be immortalized as a statue. Butt it’s not at the track where he shattered his leg, nor any home of his victories or even his stable.
No, it’s in New York’s Central Park.
And it’s not galloping mightily in the wind, nor in any pose that Red Smith would have dreamed up.
It’s lying in it’s back, legs in the air, belly draped with his saddle cloth (that’s how you can tell it’s Barbaro). This apparently represents how it couldn’t walk after it broke it’s legs and is a fitting tribute to the right-to-die movement.
Okay, so I get the concept. Don’t let animals live in some kind of vegetative state for years, like Terri Shaivo, existing only to make money. But to make it statue of Barbaro?
But when I think of things that should be euthanized, Barbaro is far from the front of the list, behind even Kim Jong Ill, Rev. Fred Phelps and Bob Cole.
Come on, Barbaro’s just a horse. Well, just was a horse, anyway.
But don’t let that get in the way of sculptor Daniel Edwards’ message. He’s the same guy who has sculpted such other modern wonders as Paris Hilton, dead on a autopsy table (complete with removable organs!) and Britney Spears giving birth (comes with a bearskin rug!).
But come on, Barbaro? The same horse that people sent flowers, apples and get-well cards to? How did a horse, inexplicably loved by tens of thousands, become a symbol of the right to die?
"We believe a memorial dedicated to the Right to Die will encourage horse owners to forego their own self-interests and act mercifully on behalf of their suffering horse," said Leo Kesting Gallery co-director, John Leo. "If Barbaro has taught us anything, it is that horses deserve our compassion first."
I still don’t get it. Had Barbaro lived – he was put down, after all, almost making him a martyr, I suppose – he would have gone to stud. You know, just hanging around the farm, occasionally mating with other horses, maybe getting visitors from the city once in a while.
And that’s supposed to be a fate worse then death?
Sounds like the afterlife to me.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Eli and Maria - Two underdog's story
Is it really an upset when one person wins over another, of perhaps equal talent? Can it be expected? Or is really that much of a surprise?
And why can’t I get Maria Sharapova separated from Eli Manning in my head?
Tangled together, perhaps because both of them are singular talents who have been unfairly labeled as underdogs.
They’re not the best in their respective sports, but they are better then most of us. And together, when they were too young, they came into major success.
Maria won Wimbledon at the tender age of 17, Eli won a Cotton bowl and was drafted first overall when he was 23 – both in 2004.
Since then, however, neither has really repeated their success. Eli took the Giants to the playoffs two times, never once making it past the first round.
Likewise for Maria, who has only won one major since 2004, the US Open.
But a new year is always a new beginning. Eli has led his Giants to the Super Bowl, with a series of marvelous games. Looking like his older brother, this postseason has done a lot to help shed Eli’s image as an overrated choker.
The Australian Open has also been good to Maria. She tore though her competition, including a 6-4, 6-0 demolishing of Justin Henin.
And suddenly, both of them are starting to look very much like winners.
But why? How did they get in the position where they had to earn that title back. Eli has always been an up and down quarterback. While he’s never been as good as his brother, he has to live up to consistent comparisons to him, all while playing for a lesser team in a harsher market.
New York devours it’s superstars, especially when they don’t win it all. It’s easy to remember how well they treated Mark Messier or Joe Namath when they won it all, but don’t forget their acrimonious exits from the city.
And while tennis is not as rabid, it’s no less forgiving. In a sport that’s been noted for it’s crushing effect on teenage psyches, Maria’s play has remained great while not retaining her ranking.
So did they really upset this week? By beating an aging legend in a bitter cold, Eli has taken his team to the Super Bowl; Maria has only made the semi-finals but surely has to be considered a late favourite to win the Australian Open.
I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
And why can’t I get Maria Sharapova separated from Eli Manning in my head?
Tangled together, perhaps because both of them are singular talents who have been unfairly labeled as underdogs.
They’re not the best in their respective sports, but they are better then most of us. And together, when they were too young, they came into major success.
Maria won Wimbledon at the tender age of 17, Eli won a Cotton bowl and was drafted first overall when he was 23 – both in 2004.
Since then, however, neither has really repeated their success. Eli took the Giants to the playoffs two times, never once making it past the first round.
Likewise for Maria, who has only won one major since 2004, the US Open.
But a new year is always a new beginning. Eli has led his Giants to the Super Bowl, with a series of marvelous games. Looking like his older brother, this postseason has done a lot to help shed Eli’s image as an overrated choker.
The Australian Open has also been good to Maria. She tore though her competition, including a 6-4, 6-0 demolishing of Justin Henin.
And suddenly, both of them are starting to look very much like winners.
But why? How did they get in the position where they had to earn that title back. Eli has always been an up and down quarterback. While he’s never been as good as his brother, he has to live up to consistent comparisons to him, all while playing for a lesser team in a harsher market.
New York devours it’s superstars, especially when they don’t win it all. It’s easy to remember how well they treated Mark Messier or Joe Namath when they won it all, but don’t forget their acrimonious exits from the city.
And while tennis is not as rabid, it’s no less forgiving. In a sport that’s been noted for it’s crushing effect on teenage psyches, Maria’s play has remained great while not retaining her ranking.
So did they really upset this week? By beating an aging legend in a bitter cold, Eli has taken his team to the Super Bowl; Maria has only made the semi-finals but surely has to be considered a late favourite to win the Australian Open.
I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Defence wins championships - AFC Title Game
They say that defence wins football games, but rarely was that as apparent as it was in Foxboro this Sunday.
Three times the Chargers had the ball inside New England’s 20 yard line – two of those times inside the 10. And yet, the Patriots defence held, not letting the Chargers score a single touchdown, forcing them to kick three field goals.
It turned out to be the margin of victory.
Since the Patriots would only manage three touchdowns on the day, if the Chargers had scored each time they were inside the 20, the score would have likely been 24-21.
Had they scored just the two times they made inside the 10, it’s still a 20-21 game, which would have given that extra incentive for the defence in the fourth quarter.
The Patriots offence sputtered and looked uncomfortable in the first half. An early interception seemed to set the tone for the Chargers defence, who allowed only 139 yards at the half. Tom Brady was only completing half of his passes and their running game was stuck in first gear.
The Chargers offence, on the other hand, looked great – until they would get close to the Patriots goal line. The controlled the clock, had nearly double the yards of New England and Rivers was throwing the ball well.
It looked like an upset in the making – if the Chargers could continue to keep the Patriots offence off the field, while they wore down their defence, they had a realistic shot at beating the unbeaten.
But the Patriots came out ready in the second half.
Tom Brady, who was 22/33, and 11/14 in the second half, wasn’t as sharp as he was the previous week. But he – and his stable of receivers – were great when it counted. When he wasn’t accurate, his receivers made great plays, diving and reaching behind them to make highlight reel catches.
Easily overlooked, however, is Lawrence Maloney. Rushing for 122 yards and a touchdown, his pounding runs helped the Patriots control the second half.
Twice the Patriots had drives of 60 or more yards, eating up the clock. One ended with a touchdown, the other with an interception. Combined, they ate up over 10 minutes.
Add New England’s final, nine-minute drive, that’s nineteen minutes of controlling the ball – more then one full quarter, nearly two-thirds of the second half.
The Chargers, meanwhile, only had three possessions in the second half, only scoring on one of them.
The best defence is a good offence, since it keeps their offence off the field. But to keep the Chargers from scoring a single TD? That was good defence.
And that’s what won the game for the Patriots.
Three times the Chargers had the ball inside New England’s 20 yard line – two of those times inside the 10. And yet, the Patriots defence held, not letting the Chargers score a single touchdown, forcing them to kick three field goals.
It turned out to be the margin of victory.
Since the Patriots would only manage three touchdowns on the day, if the Chargers had scored each time they were inside the 20, the score would have likely been 24-21.
Had they scored just the two times they made inside the 10, it’s still a 20-21 game, which would have given that extra incentive for the defence in the fourth quarter.
The Patriots offence sputtered and looked uncomfortable in the first half. An early interception seemed to set the tone for the Chargers defence, who allowed only 139 yards at the half. Tom Brady was only completing half of his passes and their running game was stuck in first gear.
The Chargers offence, on the other hand, looked great – until they would get close to the Patriots goal line. The controlled the clock, had nearly double the yards of New England and Rivers was throwing the ball well.
It looked like an upset in the making – if the Chargers could continue to keep the Patriots offence off the field, while they wore down their defence, they had a realistic shot at beating the unbeaten.
But the Patriots came out ready in the second half.
Tom Brady, who was 22/33, and 11/14 in the second half, wasn’t as sharp as he was the previous week. But he – and his stable of receivers – were great when it counted. When he wasn’t accurate, his receivers made great plays, diving and reaching behind them to make highlight reel catches.
Easily overlooked, however, is Lawrence Maloney. Rushing for 122 yards and a touchdown, his pounding runs helped the Patriots control the second half.
Twice the Patriots had drives of 60 or more yards, eating up the clock. One ended with a touchdown, the other with an interception. Combined, they ate up over 10 minutes.
Add New England’s final, nine-minute drive, that’s nineteen minutes of controlling the ball – more then one full quarter, nearly two-thirds of the second half.
The Chargers, meanwhile, only had three possessions in the second half, only scoring on one of them.
The best defence is a good offence, since it keeps their offence off the field. But to keep the Chargers from scoring a single TD? That was good defence.
And that’s what won the game for the Patriots.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Let down by the BCS
Looking back with sober reflection, I can honestly say just three words about this year’s Bowl Championship Series:
“That was it?”
Normally, even in light of biased polls and the opinions of writers from Duluth, the bowl series produces at least one game that was interesting. Not always the kind where your hat blows off the top of your head, spilling your drink as you stand up…
But the kind where you watch the whole game, even if you have no rooting interest. Even if you couldn’t name where the school is located, let alone more then two players on the team.
Even if it’s being called by Brent Musberger.
But this year, for no rhyme or reason, the BCS was a bore. A letdown. A series of unfortunately unexciting games.
Now I’ve said many times – including on this blog not too long ago – that I don’t think college football needs a playoff. And I still believe that, even in spite of all logic, for reasons that I’m sure nobody agrees with.
But after this year, I’m starting to reconsider my stance.
Last year we had an instant classic in the Boise State/Oklahoma Fiesta Bowl, a thrilling shootout that left no viewer sitting down. Before that, there was the FSU/Penn State Orange Bowl, a triple OT thriller. There was the 2005 Rose Bowl, won on a final-second kick by Texas.
(I don’t mention the Texas/USC Game simply because I feel it to be the greatest game I’ve ever seen. It was a rare alignment of the college football stars, so to speak, and cannot be replicated year after year.)
But there’s always a few stinkers too: teams that played in a weak division, perhaps, or were just plain overrated.
And two years into the BCS Bowl, that’s what both games have been: stinkers, of the highest order (or is odor?).
Twice Ohio State has made the bowl, riding the polls and a schedule against such tough teams as Kent State, Northwestern and Akron, who didn’t even score a single offense point against them in a 20-2 drubbing.
And both times in the BCS Bowl, Ohio was slammed, embarrassed by teams from the SEC.
So perhaps the system that organizes the bowls are flawed – if the polls took quality of opponent into their rankings, for instance (SEC teams would rank higher, as they play in a tough division; Hawaii wouldn’t since they play in a weaker division).
Maybe if the BCS left out the AP Poll, which rewards writers who vote for big-name schools or for a hometown favorite.
Maybe the proposed playoff system, where the current bowls would be used like an elite eight, would work to weed out the weaker teams.
But now, after a whole series of stinker bowl games – yes, even the Orange Bowl – it’s time to start looking for alternatives to the current system.
Anything to keep that lousy Buckeye team from choking in the BCS Bowl again.
“That was it?”
Normally, even in light of biased polls and the opinions of writers from Duluth, the bowl series produces at least one game that was interesting. Not always the kind where your hat blows off the top of your head, spilling your drink as you stand up…
But the kind where you watch the whole game, even if you have no rooting interest. Even if you couldn’t name where the school is located, let alone more then two players on the team.
Even if it’s being called by Brent Musberger.
But this year, for no rhyme or reason, the BCS was a bore. A letdown. A series of unfortunately unexciting games.
Now I’ve said many times – including on this blog not too long ago – that I don’t think college football needs a playoff. And I still believe that, even in spite of all logic, for reasons that I’m sure nobody agrees with.
But after this year, I’m starting to reconsider my stance.
Last year we had an instant classic in the Boise State/Oklahoma Fiesta Bowl, a thrilling shootout that left no viewer sitting down. Before that, there was the FSU/Penn State Orange Bowl, a triple OT thriller. There was the 2005 Rose Bowl, won on a final-second kick by Texas.
(I don’t mention the Texas/USC Game simply because I feel it to be the greatest game I’ve ever seen. It was a rare alignment of the college football stars, so to speak, and cannot be replicated year after year.)
But there’s always a few stinkers too: teams that played in a weak division, perhaps, or were just plain overrated.
And two years into the BCS Bowl, that’s what both games have been: stinkers, of the highest order (or is odor?).
Twice Ohio State has made the bowl, riding the polls and a schedule against such tough teams as Kent State, Northwestern and Akron, who didn’t even score a single offense point against them in a 20-2 drubbing.
And both times in the BCS Bowl, Ohio was slammed, embarrassed by teams from the SEC.
So perhaps the system that organizes the bowls are flawed – if the polls took quality of opponent into their rankings, for instance (SEC teams would rank higher, as they play in a tough division; Hawaii wouldn’t since they play in a weaker division).
Maybe if the BCS left out the AP Poll, which rewards writers who vote for big-name schools or for a hometown favorite.
Maybe the proposed playoff system, where the current bowls would be used like an elite eight, would work to weed out the weaker teams.
But now, after a whole series of stinker bowl games – yes, even the Orange Bowl – it’s time to start looking for alternatives to the current system.
Anything to keep that lousy Buckeye team from choking in the BCS Bowl again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)