Friday, September 20, 2002

Is It Possible to Have Fun Without Being Drunk? Some tattooed mullet-head and his skinhead son (or was it a skinhead and his tattooed mullet-head son?) attacked a first base coach for the Kansas City Royals at Comiskey Park last night. Luckily, they dropped their pocketknife before they could do any real damage. The coverage that I've seen gives very little information about these geniuses' motivations, except to say that: Gamboa said one of the men was speaking, but he couldn't tell what he was saying. "He was yelling something, but it was incoherent," Gamboa said. "It just happened so fast." CNNSI gives this helpful history of fan violence on or around the field of play, which doesn't include this past Monday's incident: On Monday night, police trying to break up a fight in the stands at FedEx Field in Landover, Md., used pepper spray that drifted onto the field and sickened some players as the Philadelphia Eagles played the Washington Redskins. If you scroll down to 1974 on CNNSI's history, you'll find this: 10-cent Beer Night Date: June 4, 1974 Setting: Cleveland Stadium Who are the ad wizards that came up with this one? The Indians held a wacky promotion -- beers for only 10 cents. After an estimated 60,000 cups of beer were consumed before all heck broke loose during the ninth inning of the Rangers-Indians game, which was tied 5-5. Thousands of fans stormed the field, attacking players and umpires. "There were a lot of punches thrown," Texas' Jim Fregosi said. "A lot of people got hurt. Players got hit with chairs over their heads. It was nasty." The Rangers were awarded a 9-0 forfeit. And there we have it. I would imagine that most of these incidents have alcohol in common. Aside from the fact that breweries fund sporting events as an excuse for or background accompaniment to drinking, why exactly is beer served at sporting events? 6:08:13 PM     What do you think? ()

Come to Think of It, Wasn't Hitler the Male Leader of a Western Nation Too? The German Justice Minister made a remark comparing the domestic policy tactics of President Bush to those of Hitler. The first thing that I find interesting about this story is the differing translations of the Justice Minister's remarks that I have seen. The New York Times translated them thusly: Bush wants to divert attention from his domestic problems. It's a classic tactic. It's one that Hitler also used. While the Associated Press rendered the last two sentences as: That's a popular method. Even Hitler did that. "Classic" and "popular" have fairly different meanings, and the "even" changes the feel of the comments for me. I can only imagine how diplomats, who are known to get bent out of shape over subtle shades of meaning, are debating this. The other issue that I find interesting could also be considered one of translation. Ari Fleischer's response was, in part: But this statement by the justice minister is outrageous, and it is inexplicable. Does he really mean that her remark cannot be explained? If this administration really thinks that these comments, which were not repudiated by her Chancellor (who is currently facing national elections), cannot be explained, then this administration is far denser than I think anyone feared. 8:18:38 AM     What do you think? ()

© Copyright 2003 Morgan N. Sandquist. Last update: 11/2/03; 10:28:18 AM.

Links

Weblog Roll

Currently Reading