Category Archives: sports

woman-hammer

Old-school feminism still needed to this day

I have spent my first few columns talking about unconventional ways of being a feminist: I’ve argued that a feminist doesn’t have to be a man-hater. I advocated for equal treatment of the sexes in professional wrestling. I defended the practice of critiquing Oscars fashion. But sometimes, reality slaps us in the face with some good, old-fashioned sexism, forcing feminists back to basics.

During discussions with friends and coworkers about feminism, I often run into the sentiment that feminism isn’t really needed anymore. Women are a protected class in employment, and basic rights, like voting, are guaranteed. We are free to pursue a career or to stay at home as we see fit. Even barriers in the most male-dominated walks of life, including the military, are falling.

All of this is true and good, but each of these protections is merely a legal designation. The law does not dictate attitudes or the day-to-day treatment of women. Discrimination based on sex still exists today. For most women, overt discrimination is not a daily problem. Sometimes, I go months without facing it. But when it does happen, it stings like a slap in the face.

One of the many hats I wear is as an employee in the retail shop at a sports recreation venue. In addition to selling merchandise, the store also functions as our pro shop, so I have been trained to assess equipment to determine what repair or service they may need. I have received the same training as my male colleagues, and science has yet to find compelling evidence to suggest that my physiology has any effect on my ability to examine sports equipment. Nonetheless, over the past weekend, I endured two different instances in which I was put down simply for being a woman.

Several days ago, a man who I estimate was in his late 60s or early 70s came into the shop to have his equipment serviced. He stated that he wasn’t sure what kind of service they required. I looked them over and recommended a specific type of tuning. He looked at me and said, “I would appreciate if you would go get one of the guys from the back to look at them.” I smiled, gritted my teeth, and ventured into the back of the shop looking for the male technician on duty. He looked over the equipment and recommended the exact same service I did.

To say I was furious would have been an understatement. To make matters worse, I was simply told that the industry was a “boys’ club” and I’d just have to get used to it. I’m sorry, but no, I don’t have to get used to it. There is no reason why I, or anyone, should be a victim of discrimination because someone else is trapped by ignorant thinking.

Not 24 hours later, I was on duty again. Another man, this one seeming to be in his early 50s, was having trouble with his footwear. I was working on them with some tools I had been trained to use, and he stated that, as a machinist by trade, he was uncomfortable with a female using tools on his equipment.

At this point, I was literally speechless. I had no words to either defend myself or chastise him. I finished what I was doing, and he insisted that something still wasn’t quite right. I summoned the male technician again; he took the footwear apart and put it back together. Magically, the customer found the problem had been solved. After the man left, I asked the technician if he had done anything different then I had. He informed me he had not.

The message here was loud and clear: you are a female; therefore, you are incapable of this.

No laws were violated in these cases, but that does not mean I was not discriminated against. I was belittled and dismissed for no reason other than being female. This is why we still need individuals, both female and male, to stand up and say, “Yes, I am a feminist, and actions like this are offensive.”

The topic of gender roles is a deep, deep well. We can debate the value of the yin and the yang in two-parent households on another day. But we should all be able to concede some simple points about the absurdity of some “traditional” perspectives about what men and women cannot do.

Maybe I don’t have the same physical strength to drive a sledgehammer as my husband or my father does. But the fine motor skills, like tuning and tapping, that I employ in my job? We know that a woman’s ability to operate basic hand tools like a screwdriver or a hammer has little to do with our double-X chromosomes. More to the point, there are men in this world who wouldn’t even know which end of the hammer to hold, so to assume that men are automatically better at mechanical things is just plain silly.

There are certain skills that both men and women would find useful to make it through a lifetime: knowing how to swing a hammer is one, doing a load of laundry properly is another. Neither of these skills should be exclusive to sex, and yet somehow, even in 2014, they are inextricably linked by some.

I came home after these two instances and relayed the stories to my husband. Being the modern urban gentleman that he is, he was appalled that people not only still thought this way, but that they weren’t even embarrassed to display such discrimination in public. Unfortunately, even the most dedicated male feminists will never face this issue in the way a female will. The burden falls on women to fight this backward and offensive way of thinking. And that’s why old-school, girl-power feminism is still relevant today.

aj-lee

Wrestling network chance for Divas to make moolah

In this week’s edition of “A Feminist Sensibility,” we are talking about the world of professional wrestling. During the course of this article, I focus on WWE, largely because it is the brand I am most familiar with and also has the largest female roster in the world of professional wrestling.

First, a little bit of back story. My husband, brother-in-law, and many of their friends are huge WWE fans. When my husband, near the beginning of our relationship, revealed he was a WWE fan, I was astonished. I hadn’t realized that: 1) professional wrestling was still televised, and 2) grown men were fans.

Through the beginning of our relationship, I would watch the “longest running, weekly episodic show on television” in an effort to be the “cool” girlfriend. Soon after that, I was invited to a Royal Rumble pay-per-view viewing party. I was extremely overwhelmed and completely unable to contribute to conversations. I spent most of the night asking, “Who is the one in the purple underwear again?”

Fast-forward four years and I still do not consider myself a “WWE fan,” but I can at least hold a conversation about the participants and tell you who I like and dislike.

Last month, WWE once again held its annual Royal Rumble event. For my husband’s family, this is an occasion marked with pizza, celebration, games, and even prizes. I usually attend this event and lament that my favorite wrestler, Evan “Air” Bourne is nowhere to be found these days.

As I watched this year’s Royal Rumble, I was struck by the lack of female characters. Throughout the pay-per-view, the only women were an announcer and an occasional clip showcasing Stephanie McMahon, the daughter of Vince McMahon, the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of WWE. Even during weekly episodes of Raw, the Divas matches are usually short, uninspired, and contain stereotypical female plot lines.

As a feminist, I’m hugely enamored with the concept of female wrestling. It should be a place where women are able to buck the traditional concepts of gender, focus on building muscle mass alongside the guys, and just wrestle. Unfortunately, the practice of female wrestling, at least in the realm of WWE, turns into a beauty contest and not an athletic event. I’m not saying a woman can’t be both beautiful and strong, because I absolutely think she can. What I am saying is that WWE seems to be more worried about the hair, makeup, and breast implants of their Divas more than actually fostering any wrestling talent they may have.

Furthermore, young female wrestlers who show talent and aptitude in the ring are often forced to take it down a notch for mass appeal. When the wrestler A.J. Lee debuted, I was extremely excited because I liked her and her persona of a nerdy, quirky, non-traditional ass-kicker. She had the potential to join the ranks of other female trailblazers in the industry, including The Fabulous Moolah and the recently departed Mae Young.

True to form for WWE, though, A.J.’s story line quickly spiraled downhill until she was just an accessory to the guys’ action. She was messing with all the male Superstars’ heads, was nearly married off, and was deemed “crazy.” I was no longer excited to see her on the screen and, in my mind, she was downgraded as “just another pretty face.”

As an aside, since I know someone will bring it up if I don’t, let’s talk about the Divas’ skimpy outfits for just a moment. Let me be clear: I have zero problems with the outfits the Divas wear in the ring. This is one instance where I think the men and women are truly equal. The men wear outfits that are just as revealing, and at this point, it’s not about objectification of the body, but more about showing the athleticism of those in the ring. So an occasional boob pops out, but there’s no difference between the guys who ogle Summer Rae and me hoping that I get a glimpse of Christian’s tush.

It is easy to blame the lackluster Divas division on the man at the top of the company. Perhaps the lack of creativity isn’t entirely Vince McMahon’s fault, though. It may just be a reflection of wrestling fans at-large, and that is the conversation we need to be having to change the dynamics.

During the Royal Rumble main event last month, the “WWE Universe” was extremely upset that Daniel Bryan was not a participant in the 30-man battle royal. At the reveal of the final Rumble entrant, the mostly male crowd started chanting, “We want Divas!” The chant was an insult aimed at the organizers and writers. The implication: the inevitability of Batista winning the match was so bad that even watching Divas wrestle would have been a more appealing option.

As a woman watching the Royal Rumble, I was insulted by the “We want Divas” chant. You are damn right I wanted Divas, but not because I was unsatisfied by the Royal Rumble match, but because when I’m watching WWE, I’d like to see something I can relate to (and no, Total Divas is not the answer). I understand WWE has to be extremely careful about putting men and women in the ring together. I’m absolutely certain the last thing McMahon wants to see on-screen in the contemporary, PG-rated version of WWE is a male wrestler beating up a female wrestler, creating a visual representation of domestic violence. But that isn’t to say the current path of WWE is “female friendly.”

If there is one thing I can give McMahon credit for, it is his ability to see how things can change in the future. One of the reasons WWE has been so successful as a company is largely due to McMahon’s ability to see the potential of a nationwide cable television audience before anyone else. What’s more is he’s proving his business savvy once again with the creation of the WWE Network, which debuted yesterday.

I believe McMahon and company have a chance to change my mind and possibly even turn me into a “fan.” With the new network, WWE has a unique opportunity to expand and experiment with what would attract (and keep) a feminist audience. As a first step, I would suggest WWE actually try to employ a female writer (or two, but let’s not get too radical) for the network, since there aren’t any in the company as of now.

I also believe there are men out there who would enjoy a more robust Divas division. I believe this because I watch wrestling with some of these men, and these men send money to McMahon on a regular basis. This is why, even if McMahon doesn’t share my Feminist Sensibility, I hold out hope that he will see the error of his ways when it comes to the Divas and will work with some female creative writers to make the Divas division the best thing it possibly can be — and make some money while he’s at it.

So Mr. McMahon, if you are reading this, please give me a call. I’d love to be the first female creative writer for you, and I’ve got a lot of great ideas on how to make the Divas brand soar.

caber

Obscure, ancient sports may be Olympic material

The Olympics have a storied history. The Greeks (and Romans) held them virtually unbroken for a thousand years until they were banned in the fourth century in the interests of Christianity. They came back in the late 1800s and have stuck around until present day, no longer connoting paganism, but now presenting a worldwide competition, complete with advertising, paparazzi, and terrorist attacks (sometimes). We marvel at the figure skaters and gymnasts, we cheer at the runners, swimmers, and skiers. We wince at the inevitable slips and tumbles.

Some of us tune in, though, just to see the stranger sports showcased, such as biathlon (you ski, and then you shoot stuff!), bicycle sprint (you try very hard to go slower than the other person for as long as possible before the finish line, when you speed up and go for the win), and curling (I … uh … truth be told, I have no idea what’s going on in curling). What we strange-sports enthusiasts need is more! More weird stuff, the weirder the better.

“But Jim,” you ask, “where are you going to get weirder sports than those?”

Have no fear, dear reader. There’s gold in them thar hills.

Caber toss

The Scottish “heavy” sport of throwing logs around. From the Gaelic word for “pole,” a caber is a long, wooden beam, 19-and-a-half feet tall (about 4 people), that weighs around 75 pounds. The sport is probably only a few hundred years old, and it’s believed that the first caber tossers practiced their craft in order to construct impromptu bridges during wartime, perhaps as part of sieges or invasions of contested territory near rivers and marshlands. They’d throw a tree trunk so their fellows could scramble across quickly and catch the enemy in an unguarded flank.

The caber is lifted up vertical, so the top of it is directly above the tosser’s head. The tosser lets the caber fall forward, running after it, until it hits a precise angle. Then the bottom of the caber is lifted up. The top (now the new bottom) plants into the ground and the bottom (now the new top) flips up and over, hopefully, landing on the other side. The object is not to get the most distance, but rather to have the straightest possible line. If the caber does not flip entirely over, the tosser loses major points.

Would this sport be a good addition to the Olympics, or a great addition to the Olympics? I, for one, would absolutely tune in to see this in the Summer Games, especially if it were jumbled together with some other sport, like biking or distance running. Run a mile, then toss a caber, run another mile (or more if your toss doesn’t make it over). Great fun!

Pankration

Greek παγκράτιον (pan: “all”; kra-tee-on: “strength”) is essentially the mixed-martial arts of the original Olympic Games. A sort of crossbreed between wrestling and boxing, the only rules were no biting and no eye-gouging. Everything else was fair and square (though excessive overuse of kicking was not considered very manly). The one who tapped out (or passed out, or died) first was the loser.

In one of the games, a man named Arrhichion managed to kick his opponent in the toe, breaking it, while trapped in a chokehold. The other man forfeited from the pain, thus granting victory to A-Dog, but by the time the ref called the match, Arrhichion was dead from the choke. They named him winner, put a crown of laurels on his head, and marched him back home as a champion, though.

Theseus was supposed to have used this fighting style against the minotaur, and Hercules against the lion in his first labor. Indeed, the grappling and choking techniques of pankration were used by the Grecian and Macedonian armies, including the Spartan hoplites. (“This is madness! This is pankration!“)

Should pankration be part of the games? It was an original Olympic sport, after all. But probably not. There’s a reason Ultimate Fighting Championship-style, “anything goes” combat tournaments are not shown on daytime television. People get hurt. People die. Granted, there have been seven athlete deaths during modern Olympic games, from 1912 through 2010 (mostly in practice), and hundreds of injuries, but we don’t go seeking them out, either.

Pankration is more of a blood sport than fits well into a competition designed to bring people and cultures together. When Pierre de Coubertin sought to revive the Olympic Games in 1896, the archbishop of Lyon told him, “We accept all, except pankration.” Yeah, but what about chariot racing?

Mesoamerican ball game

It has a more fun name than that. The Mayans called it Pok-Ta-Pok. Probably onomatopoeia. The ball game was serious business! Even more so than football! It was deeply entrenched in the religious rituals and myths of the Mesoamerican people. Games were sometimes held to represent historic battles, where one team were the “losers,” so they would lose the game, then be sacrificed to the gods.

The Mayan hero twins, Hunahpu (“Who?” “Nah, Pooh”) and Xbalanque (“Chi ball on, ‘kay?”), played against One and Seven Death. (Mayans named their kids after the day they were born, and Death was not a great day to be born on.) Mssrs. Death were the rulers of Xibalba, which is sort of like Hell, a little. It’s where the dead go. After overcoming seven trials, the heroes won the ball game! Then got thrown into a fire. Then they came back and disguised themselves as magicians for a while, until One and Seven Death invited the twins to perform, and the Xibalbans were like “Ooh! Ooh! Saw me in half now!” so Hunahpu and Xbalanque did. Anyway, the ball game was super important.

While some of the aspects of the original game are lost, we still know a lot about it. The ball was solid rubber, heavy and tough, about a foot in diameter. Players bopped the ball back and forth with their hips, and wore thick leather girdles to prevent bones breaking and such. If a ball hit you in the head, hard and fast, you could very easily die. You scored points by knocking the ball into the other team’s wall. Eventually, they started putting vertical hoops about six meters (20ish feet) up the wall on either side of the court, barely large enough to fit the ball into — think Quidditch. If you got the ball through one, you won the game, though trying for it and missing cost you points.

Should the ball game make an Olympic comeback? Heck yeah! With ergonomic and safe equipment, athletes could be throwing their hips around like Elvis impersonators at a bar mitzvah in no time. I mean, cut the bit about human sacrifice, anyway, and it’s all gravy.

 

What do you all think? Are weird sports your tea and biscuits? Any others I haven’t mentioned? Let us know!

cuju2

Are you ready for some cuju?

Ah, American football. The roar of the crowds. The crunching of bones. The instinctual dopamine rush of identifying with an in-group against a common “enemy.” The blinding splatter of advertisements on everything in sight. Oh, and there’s also the skill and athleticism of professional sportsmen on display, which I guess is appealing.

It’s no wonder that you can’t spit without hitting a football fan in this country and that nothing else on television can compete in the ratings. But we didn’t always have football. The National Football League has only been around since 1920. And in fact, if you pay careful attention to the weird letters that come after the word “Super Bowl,” you’ll notice there have only been 48 of them so far. This isn’t news for the elders among us, but come along with me and let’s explore where this crazy game came from.

First, let’s go to China. What? I’m serious. It’s likely that the ancient Greeks and Romans played games involving the kicking around of balls as well, but there are actual records of rules (well, instructions anyway) in a Chinese military manual from around the second century BC. The Chinese called the “game” cuju, Chinese for “kick ball,” and it consisted of kicking leather balls through silk hoops placed 9 meters off the ground.

Cuju may not have a national tournament these days, but the Japanese offshoot, called kemari (means the same thing, “kick ball”) still gets played today at Shinto festivals. Kemari is a cooperative sport that looks more like Hacky Sack than anything, where you kick the ball around a circle of players, trying to keep it in the air without using your hands.

Different ball games were played all across the world, from Mesoamerica (we’ll get to the Mayans next week) to Greenland to Australia, but our version’s most distant traceable ancestor comes from England in the ninth century. Back then, whole villages would compete with each other, throwing around balls made of inflated animal bladders, including pig’s bladders (hence the phrase “pigskin”), trying to get them to some landmark or other, like a church or a well. No limits to the number of people playing, and you could use hands, feet, sticks, whatever to get the ball around. They usually played during festivals.

(Some towns still do play on Mardi Gras, called Shrove Tuesday across the pond. The County of Derbyshire holds such matches).

Because every now and again somebody got knifed in the back, say, or perhaps on account of the drunken and disorderly conduct surrounding these outings, several attempts were made to outlaw the sport of football in its early years, though these efforts never seemed to stick. Typically, the penalty for breaking the law would be a fine. I expect if someone tried to ban football today, the NFL could afford to continue playing while paying the fine each week. Heck, that would be a great new source of government revenue! (Note: The author of this article does not advocate or endorse the banning of football in this country, mostly because he does not want to be stabbed with a knife.)

Fast-forward to a school in the town of Rugby (“Rook Fort,” whether referring to the bird or a man’s name) in Warwickshire, England, in 1823. By this time, the game of football had evolved into something a little more organized, with loosely defined rules and a set number of players on the field at a time. Inflated pig bladders were still used, though. The game resembled soccer (itself abbreviated from “association football“), with each side trying to kick the ball into the opponents’ goal. At the Rugby School, a boy named William Webb Ellis was alleged to have received a kick, catching it. The normal response would have been to back up into controlled territory, drop the ball, and try to kick it further downfield. Instead, Ellis said (to himself, I’m sure — and I’m guessing here), “F- this,” and ran forward, ball in hand, thus inventing the game of rugby.

If you’ve ever seen the game of rugby played, it is frantic and violent. I mean, so is American football. But in rugby, each play starts out with the ball in neither team’s control as the opposing teams huddle around it. When the whistle blows, they try to hook the ball with their legs to get possession, and end up creating a terrible mess of potential injury in the process. They call this a “scrum,” short for “scrummage,” which is a form of the word “skirmish,” a military term, which itself derives from an old French word meaning “defend.” More military analogues! Yay!

In the late 19th century, rugby came to North America. For the most part, colleges would compete with each other using eclectic rules that changed from game to game. A coach named Walter Camp was the one who came up with the idea of a line of scrimmage and one team having possession of the ball at the start of plays, along with the need to advance 10 yards within four downs.

Between the start of these new rules and the year 1905, some 300 odd college kids died at football, prompting President Teddy Roosevelt to authorize the agency which would become the NCAA to take charge of streamlining the rules and making play safer. They made forward passing legal, which ultimately changed the game into what we now know as American football.

So what about the Super Bowl? When the American Football League came into the picture in 1960, in direct competition with the NFL, both leagues knew they couldn’t coexist independently. They drained away too much of each other’s audience. So they decided to merge together, and after the 1966 season, they held a grand tournament. But what to call it? The officially designated name, “AFL-NFL World Championship Game,” lacked a certain … kick?

Well, the biggest after-season college football game in those days was held at the Pasadena Rose Bowl Stadium (named after the bowl shape of its stands, which itself took cue from the Yale Bowl stadium), and the name of the game officially became the “Rose Bowl Game” after about 1923. Eventually, all postseason college games became known as bowls. The principal founder of the AFL and coach of its champion Kansas City Chiefs, Lamar Hunt, said he jokingly referred to the game as a “Super Bowl,” because his kids were playing with the bouncy balls called super balls. You know the ones.

So there you have it. The most-watched sporting event in the United States, with all its humble origins. I, for one, think it would have been more fun if everyone from Denver had lined up against everyone from Seattle, trying to get a football to the Seattle Space Needle, last weekend, but maybe that’s just me.

red-coat

Russian skater in red calls out Olympics, Putin

Russian figure skater Yulia Lipnitskaia is taking the 2014 Winter Olympics by storm. At 15 years of age, she has positioned herself as a favorite for the gold medal in this year’s ladies’ singles free skate competition, and she seems poised to be the greatest female figure skater in the world through at least the 2018 Games.

Today, in the ladies’ free portion of the team event, making its debut in Sochi, Russia, Lipnitskaia took the ice in a brave and provocative performance. As Russian president Vladimir Putin settled into his seat in the Iceberg Skating Palace, Lipnitskaia stood at center ice, clad in a red leotard while the strains of John Williams‘ score to Schindler’s List came to life.

Steven Spielberg’s 1993 historical drama tells the story of Oskar Schindler, a German man who saved more than 1,000 Polish Jews from execution in the Holocaust. The film is presented nearly entirely in black-and-white, and one splash of color creates a stark image: the red coat of a young girl as she tries to hide from the Nazis who are “liquidating” the Jews of the Kraków ghetto. Later, Schindler sees a body clad in a red coat among a wagon of dead bodies being carted off for disposal.

Not everyone is impressed with Lipnitskaia’s performance choice. Critics pan the idea that the suffering of the Jews during the Holocaust should be “trivialized” in a figure skating routine. That is the wrong perspective.

Lipnitskaia’s choice to portray that girl on the ice today is a bold statement that echoes the fundamental principles of the Olympic Games, namely that “[t]he goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of humankind, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity.” The girl in red also challenges the leader of her country, directly to his face, to reconcile the Russian president’s desire to host these Games with his disregard for human rights.

It is true that the Soviet Union fought against Nazi Germany in World War II; the USSR was not complicit in the Holocaust. Nonetheless, the hands of the Russian Empire are not free of the blood of genocide.

The policies of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin created a famine that killed millions in Ukraine in 1932 and 1933. Today, Ukraine is still fighting to exorcise the ghost of the long Soviet presence in its borders as the nation determines its identity in a new Europe.

In fact, Sochi itself may have been the site of the first modern European genocide: beginning in 1859, Russian emperor Alexander II engaged in a campaign to relocate the Circassians by massacring the North Caucasians in their native villages.

While the act was not perpetrated by the Russian government, the Caucasus Mountains were also the setting for the mass killing of Armenians by the Ottoman Turks in 1915. Even today, the Caucasus is a hotbed of separatist movement and brutal government crackdowns. The terror threat at the 2014 Games is directly connected to the unrest in this region, including Chechnya, at the edges of Moscow’s grasp. The 2013 Boston Marathon bombing suspects had ties to radical Islam in the Russian republic of Dagestan. This unrest underlines the sense throughout the region that oppression has been a way of life for centuries.

The socio-cultural focus of these Games from the American perspective has been on Russia’s ban on “homosexual propaganda.” Putin himself has said the nation must be “cleansed” of homosexuality. That language is chilling, and one can only hope this is a subpar translation of Putin’s Russian. If it is not, the global community must be on alert and be ready to take action.

All of these elements make the decision of the International Olympic Committee to award the 2014 Olympics to Russia difficult to understand. The IOC seems to pay lip service to the supremacy of human rights while granting financial reward and international prestige to a government that has not valued those very same rights.

The Olympics judges at the Iceberg are equipped to struggle with assessing the technical skill and artistic beauty of Lipnitskaia’s skating. And at 15, Lipnitskaia may not even comprehend the full weight of her performance. But it is the duty of the rest of us, the viewers of these Games, to recognize the moment of reflection that has been created by Lipnitskaia and her team to portray such a stark moment in such a vital film.

Kraków, Poland, is one of five applicant cities to host the 2022 Winter Games. If Kraków, a city that has overcome such a terrible chapter in human history, should be awarded the Games, the IOC will have presented an opportunity to showcase the triumph of the human spirit instead of shilling for a regime that does not demonstrate a concern for the very principles on which the Games were founded.

Here’s hoping the IOC has the wisdom to make as powerful a statement then as Lipnitskaia did today.

2014-olympics

Sochi Olympic terror scare overblown, not new

The Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, are just over a week away, and I, for one, could not be more excited. Unfortunately, unrest and threats of terrorism in the area of the Games are distracting many from celebrating the core principles that have guided the Olympics for over a century.

The Olympics are one of my favorite events of all-time, and I love the Games for a lot of different reasons. I have a great respect for all the athletes involved in the competitions. The sheer dedication it takes to become an Olympic athlete is something I wish I could replicate in my everyday life.

In fact, in a meager attempt to emulate the athletes’ focus and commitment, I challenge myself during each Olympics to put many hours into completing a difficult knitting project. Two years ago, I completed an entire sweater in the first week of the Games, which should have earned me at least a bronze medal.

But most of all, I love the Olympics because the Games symbolize unity, peace, and multiculturalism. I understand that the threat of a terrorist attack at the Games is real, and that threat must be reported and investigated. However, I worry that misplaced media coverage is creating irrational fears and distorting our perspective on the risks and consequences of acts of terror.

First, some historical context: Targeting the Olympics to make a statement is certainly not a new idea. In 1936, Hitler used the Summer Games as a platform for his propaganda of racial supremacy. In 1972, Germany had hopes of erasing this image from the world’s mind when they hosted the Summer Games in Munich; unfortunately, the long-time unrest between Israel and the Palestinians spilled into the Olympic spotlight when the Palestinian group Black September kidnapped and ultimately killed 11 members of the Israeli Olympic team.

Then, in 1996, Eric Robert Rudolph bombed the Centennial Olympic Park in Atlanta to protest the government’s stance on abortion. To this day, I fail to see the correlation between the Olympics and women’s reproductive rights, but I digress.

A terrorist attack at the 2014 Games would be a tragedy. But as history shows, it would not be the first such attack. And while the loss of a single human life, anywhere in the world, is to be avoided if possible and mourned if not, the scope of a potential attack must be viewed in proportion.

What we have, though, is a 24-hour news cycle generating a never-ending stream of worry. Instead of a single, front-page article reporting the threat on the Games, we are bombarded with media outlets showing coverage of burning buildings and giving us geography lessons on the location of the Caucasuses (they’re here). Most, if not all, of the American mainstream media have written headlines and stories that give off the vibe that a terrorist attack is imminent.

The sensationalist coverage is having tangible effects. Some Americans have even begun to cancel their travel plans in order to watch the Games from the security and safety of their own homes. After seeing the aforementioned coverage, who can blame them? Instead of reporting the facts, the majority of news outlets, in their unquenchable thirst for ratings and page clicks, are creating a narrative out of “what ifs” and “could bes” that is altering the course of the Games themselves.

Let’s be real. We live in a world where a terrorist attack could happen at any time, on any day. The Olympics are obviously a logical target, but the event has gone off without a hitch 47 other times. In fact, the most dangerous attacks are the everyday ones, the ones no one has planned for: the attacks of Sept. 11, the Boston Marathon bombings, the car explosions and suicide missions that are a part of the everyday life of people all over the world and receive nearly no coverage in our media.

I have to wonder if our visceral reaction to the safety measures in Sochi are remnants from the Cold War. What if, instead of Russia, the Olympics were being held in France or Spain and suddenly there was an uprising in the Basque region? Would we call in to question French President François Hollande’s ability to keep our athletes and citizens safe? Or is it just easier to question the motives of Russian President Vladimir Putin because he has been seen as the enemy other times in U.S. history?

Holding Russia to a higher standard is unfair. No American can forget that our country has not prevented every terrorist attack. The Boston Marathon, 9/11, and, yes, the 1996 Atlanta Olympics are just a few examples of when terrorism has struck on our own turf. On the other hand, the U.S. hosted the 2002 Winter Games in Salt Lake City a mere five months after the 9/11 attacks. There were probably plenty of countries that were wary about sending their athletes and citizens to our seemingly “unsafe” nation. The 2002 Games were without incident and provided some much needed peace and unity.

Thankfully, the U.S. government is responding to the terrorist threat more responsibly than the media is. Instead of just finger-pointing, the U.S. is working with Russia to share our knowledge and expertise in counter-terrorism. This type of global dialogue is encouraging and, to me, what the Olympics are really about.

The beauty of the Olympics is that it doesn’t matter how many people use it as their political platform for acts of terrorism. It will remain a symbol of global unity. The Olympic spirit and ideals are not tangible things that are able to be destroyed. Long after we all have shuffled off this mortal coil, the Olympics will continue so that our grandchildren’s children can cheer on their favorite sports (I’m looking at you, curling) and chant the always inspiring “USA! USA!”

Rumble-2014

‘Road to WrestleMania’ begins at Royal Rumble

After five months of terrible booking, we’ve finally reached that special time of year when WWE is bearable to watch. And perhaps no WWE show is more bearable than the Royal Rumble.

This year’s show is headlined by a WWE Super-Duper Extra Special Heavyweight Championship match between Randy “Bland White Guy” Orton and John “Bland White Guy” Cena in a “We Ran Out of Stipulations” match that’s sure to be as compelling as a Maven promo.

But we all know the real main event is the eponymous Royal Rumble match. Thirty wrestlers enter, only one can win. Unless it’s 1994.

This year’s Rumble match is expected to be an exciting one. Unlike previous years, there is no obvious winner, though there are some heavy favorites. So let’s take a look at the top contenders to win big this year, forecast where the win could take them, and argue what would be best for our entertainment.


Batista

Chances of Winning: Very High

Returning just in time for the Royal Rumble seems incredibly lucky, and definitely tilts the betting odds in The Animal’s favor. However, being announced ahead of time removes the virtual guarantee of victory that a surprise number 30 return holds.

Batista’s homecoming allows a plethora of interesting story lines going forward. Does The Animal take on the Beast, Brock Lesnar, at WrestleMania XXX? Or does Big Dave aim to be the new “face of the company,” either challenging Randy Orton, or turning heel and joining The Authority to replace The Viper? Any of these options allows for Batista to win the battle royal and move on to WrestleMania.

The most likely outcome from my perspective is a one-on-one dream match with Lesnar. Despite Lesnar’s claims to the number one contendership, I don’t think this match needs the WWE Championship on the line, and it would be stupid to take the belt away from a full-time star who has worked the entire year. Then again, The Rock was WWE Champion last year, so fairness is clearly not a factor in booking WrestleMania.

Equally as likely, in keeping with the unfair nature of WWE booking, would be Batista winning the Rumble and putting Orton away in the main event of WrestleMania, proving that WWE’s long-term booking plans were never about getting anyone new over.

My hope would be for The Animal to join The Authority, replacing Orton after his failure to defeat Cena, opening the door for a WrestleMania main event of D.B. vs D.B.: WWE Champion Batista vs Royal Rumble winner Daniel Bryan.

Possible WrestleMania Opponents: Brock Lesnar (most likely), Randy Orton, Daniel Bryan


Bray Wyatt

Chances of Winning: Lowest

Bray Wyatt is perhaps the largest outside shot in this list, but he could be the Franklin Pierce of the 2014 Rumble. (Franklin Pierce was never expected to be a presidential candidate, but he earned the Democratic nomination when the party could not agree on anyone else. He then proceeded to become the 14th President of the United States.) Wyatt, who models himself as this dimension’s Galactus, has certainly devoured the world of our expectations. It’s said that Wyatt is a personal favorite of Vince McMahon, which means good things for our friendly neighborhood cult leader.

Unfortunately for older fans, the most likely opponent for Wyatt in such a scenario is The Champ himself, John Cena. Cena vs. Wyatt could undoubtedly make for an entertaining story line heading into the Show of Shows, so this is another matchup that should not be about the WWE Championship. Bray’s creepy antics and violent tendencies would make for a great foil to pro wrestling’s Superman, and there’s no doubt the match could be an interesting watch.

This seems to be a pretty strong idea for a match at WrestleMania, but again, it doesn’t need a WWE Championship attached to it to make the match compelling.

Possible WrestleMania Opponents: John Cena, Daniel Bryan, the Shield


CM Punk

Chances of Winning: High

Even entering the Rumble match at number one, CM Punk has a higher chance than most to win, but it still seems unlikely. The Straight Edge Savior’s WrestleMania spot seems set in stone: a clash with Triple H for which the foundation is already being laid. However, if the last year is any indication, feuding with The Game does not mean you will ever actually wrestle him. Alternately, Punk could be building toward a one-on-one with Randy Orton in the main event.

Punk is long overdue for the final slot on the WrestleMania card. Shafted in that respect by WWE booking for two years in a row, the Second City Saint spent 434 days as WWE Champion without getting to defend his title in the final match of the Show of Shows. To put that in perspective, The Miz, King Kong Bundy, and Bam Bam Bigelow all closed out WrestleMania at some point in their careers.

Despite this obvious injustice, WWE appears intent on booking Triple H vs. CM Punk in what should be a very colorful feud — as long as Punk is allowed to let loose. This means Punk is likely to get knocked out of the Rumble match through less-than-clean circumstances. That will allow him to move forward with the anti-authority story line that promises to birth some very good promos, at least from Punk (with Triple H only pretending he’s on the Best in the World’s level).

In the best possible scenario, CM Punk wins the WWE title in the Elimination Chamber and faces Daniel Bryan in the single greatest WrestleMania main event ever. That, however, is the craziest of dreams.

Possible WrestleMania Opponents: Triple H, Randy Orton


Roman Reigns

Chances of Winning: Low

Another outside shot whose chances in the Rumble are dependent on Vince McMahon’s whims. Remember in the early days of the ECW “brand” when Paul Heyman wanted to build his show around CM Punk, and Vince said: No, the future is in Bobby Lashley? Clearly, Vince knows his stuff. Anyway, Lashley was nowhere near ready, while Punk was already blazing trails and getting over based on in-ring performance alone. So, as expected, Vince went with the bland meathead.

Roman Reigns is no Lashley. Reigns is great. Reigns has potential. Roman Reigns, however, is perhaps the third most talented guy in The Shield. Being the third best in The Shield still makes you better than 90 percent of professional wrestlers, but it shouldn’t warrant a rushed push. Still, that’s obviously the direction WWE is deciding to go, leaving Rollins and Ambrose to either find a new partner or end the hottest gimmick WWE has introduced in a decade.

Rumor is that Roman Reigns’s push is expected to see him plow through the roster in the Royal Rumble. While the Diesel push could be fun to watch, he certainly shouldn’t win the match. The money match for The Shield is either in a six-man tag against the Wyatt’s (remember that pop when they got into a scrape?) or a triple threat among his fellow soon-to-be-former members of The Shield.

If Reigns does shock the world and win the match, his opponent at the big show should definitely be Randy Orton. A win at the Rumble would propel Reigns into stardom and certainly give him some solid babyface support. That kind of popularity, however, would be no match for John Cena’s, who only gets booed out of the building when he is facing much cooler wrestlers than Reigns — guys like Edge, Rob Van Dam, CM Punk, and Daniel Bryan.

Possible WrestleMania Opponents: Seth Rollins and Dean Ambrose, Randy Orton, John Cena, the Wyatt’s


Brock Lesnar

Chances of Winning: Low

As of now, the Beast isn’t even an entrant in the Royal Rumble, but that could simply be a swerve. Brock Lesnar as a surprise number 30 would blow the roof off the building, and the likely confrontation with Batista would immediately ignite a WrestleMania feud. Lesnar could eliminate The Animal and win the Rumble, with Batista taking the belt in the Chamber, setting up the epic clash of big men on the Grandest Stage of Them All.

Lesnar has long been rumored to be The Undertaker’s opponent for this installment of The Streak, but that seems to be losing favor with the fear that his rough style could hurt the aging Phenom. Another option for Lesnar at WrestleMania would be for him to win the title at Elimination Chamber, becoming The Authority’s new champion and a seemingly unbeatable force, to be conquered at WrestleMania by either his 2013 SummerSlam opponent, CM Punk, or the people’s choice, Daniel Bryan, either of which promises to be an awesome match.

The best decision may simply be to leave the Beast out of the Rumble match and book him against Batista (see above). Their clash should be about who is better and stronger, not about a championship that neither has held in years. And if Lesnar isn’t going to win, he shouldn’t be anywhere near the Rumble match.

Possible WrestleMania Opponents: Batista, The Undertaker, Daniel Bryan


Daniel Bryan

Chances of Winning: High

It’s very rare that the sentimental favorite for the Royal Rumble is considered an unlikely victor for the match. I list Bryan as highly likely to win because of the grassroots support for the man, and because it would be the best next step in Bryan Danielson’s long journey to being a legitimate WWE Champion. Despite this, WWE’s booking of Bryan has clearly been terrible, and it seems unlikely Vince is going to trust the man with the WrestleMania main event, despite his overwhelming popularity.

We all want Daniel Bryan to win this match. Even though I am a CM Punk fan first, I want Bryan to win the WWE Championship at WrestleMania. There is no better possible conclusion to the terrible Authority story line than Punk defeating Triple H, and Bryan finally obtaining the WWE Championship (again).

Unfortunately, the question of who his WrestleMania opponent would be is very tricky. WWE can’t possibly sell Orton vs. Bryan as the main event of another pay-per-view (is that word anachronistic now?), and while John Cena vs. Daniel Bryan II would be huge, it’s doubtful that anyone in WWE would allow Bryan to beat Cena twice. No one gets that kind of honor. Cena vs. Bryan also lacks the payoff for the god-awful Authority story line, unless — and this is highly unlikely and ill-advised — Cena turns heel and joins the McMahons.

Recent rumors have indicated Bryan is a possible challenger to The Streak this year. The chances of that pairing almost make all of the terrible booking of the past year acceptable. Is there any other man in or out of WWE who would give The Deadman such a good match? And with his never-say-die character, Bryan could get an amazing rub and look unbelievable in his inevitable defeat.

Daniel Bryan manages to be simultaneously the best choice and the least likely to win the Rumble match, which makes judging his odds difficult. I stand by my ranking of Bryan as highly likely to win, despite my better judgment saying it won’t happen.

Possible WrestleMania Opponents: The Undertaker, Randy Orton, John Cena, Batista, Brock Lesnar, Bray Wyatt


The Odds

Superstar
Odds
Batista
2:1
Daniel Bryan
3:1
CM Punk
5:1
Roman Reigns
10:1
Brock Lesnar
15:1
Bray Wyatt
25:1

 

Ultimately, Batista is the odds-on favorite to win the Rumble match. However, Daniel Bryan has forged an amazing connection with fans around the world who want to see him succeed more than anything. The question is whether or not Vince McMahon is willing to accept this fact and give the people what they want. Knowing the McMahon track record, this seems highly unlikely, but we can always hope.

After all, WWE thrives on hope. We hope for our heroes to vanquish the dragons and defeat their own demons. We hope the hard worker will get his time in the sun. We hope Triple H won’t cut a 30-minute promo, running down the entire roster. And we hope to see John Cena win against the monsters like Khali and lose to the workers like Bryan and Punk. We hope. And, every once in a while, WWE lets us believe.

Let’s hope Sunday, January 26, is one of those times.