Tim Thomas was a total dickhead during the Stanley Cup Final, and he’s still a dickhead. This move of his does not surprise me in the least. I would not be shocked to hear that the only reason he did this was to stroke his own over-inflated ego. He’s a complete asshole.
I’m glad he did this, because now more people know what a self-centered asshole he really is.
As the OP said, I would have applauded it if someone had done this to Bush, so I’ll have to say that it’s just as valid to do this to Obama.
Frankly, though, I don’t think presidents should be wasting their time feting millionaire professional athletes and bowing to the petty tribalism that is sports enthusiasm. Sports is not art, culture, literature, or philosophy. And it’s entertainment in only the basest sense – the joy of defeating one’s fellow humans – something that perhaps the auspices of the political state shouldn’t indulge.
On the other end of the scale, I emphatically believe that the president, any president, neither deserves nor should be given any kind of symbolic deference by any member of the American society. He’s a guy in a job, a temporary one at that. Period. So, while I like this president and I likely disagree completely with this particular hockey player’s political views, I applaud him for being true to his personal beliefs.
For a specific citation of someone doing essentially this to the “other side,” although in this case not a sports figure or a team issue, I was just today reading about poet Sharon Olds and ran across this:
[QUOTE=Wikipedia]
In 2005, First Lady Laura Bush invited Olds to the National Book Festival in Washington, D.C. Olds responded, declining the invitation in an open letter published in the October 10th, 2005 issue of The Nation. The letter closes: “So many Americans who had felt pride in our country now feel anguish and shame, for the current regime of blood, wounds and fire. I thought of the clean linens at your table, the shining knives and the flames of the candles, and I could not stomach it”.
[/QUOTE]
Yes. The head of state kisses babies, welcomes dignitaries, receives ambassadors, tours the regions, and opens new arts centres. Meanwhile, the head of government gets down and dirty with the other politicians, gets slagged in the press, receives pies and protests in the face, and fends off attackers with statuary.
IMHO, the US really needs to separate the two offices, so that people can disagree with the policies of the president without insulting the symbols of the United States.
What I think we need to do is dispense with using human beings as symbols and use, you know, symbols.
Or let people choose their own symbols. Just like a president-elect can choose anyone to give him the oath of office – the chief justice, his pastor, or his own grampa – let people receiving honours choose for themselves whom they want to receive them from.
Good luck with that.
What the hell are you talking about? Sports are as integral a part of modern culture as any art form.
Integral? Certainly popular. Certainly profitable, just like pornography, gambling, drugs, and alcohol. It’s pure tribalism. People may enjoy it, but it shouldn’t be granted the public honor of the state.
Do you feel the same about the olympics? Just curious.
Dude, your head of state was an actor who co-starred with a chimp, so enough of this silliness about sport not being part of culture and being the basest of entertainment.
Pretty much. I don’t see any reason to celebrate people grouping themselves by nationality and then trying to see who “wins.”
I don’t have many good things to say about Ronald Reagan, so I see no conflict there. In fact, Reagan exemplified the worst kind of base tribalist chauvinism, in my view.
That’s like saying no Occupy Wallstreet complained during President Clinton’s term.
Actually, the vocal ideas of the tea party movement started with 2nd term of President Bush. The Republicans under his administration were soundly criticized by fiscal conservatives for excessive spending. That’s why you have Democrats in the movement today. They recognize that both parties have spent money wildly. Republican candidates who do not espouse the fiscal responsibility face the same criticism aimed at Democratic leaders.
Right- governments can start wars and kill people and make tributes to people who do that, but honoring sports is barbaric. It’s fine if you’re not into sports, but I think you have a poor understanding of why people actually enjoy them.
I don’t think the state should make tributes to people for killing people, either, for that matter.
Why doesn’t the president hand out medals for the best performance in an adult film? Or the best Las Vegas brothel? I’d be much more interested in that than seeing him shake hands with hockey thugs and battlefield killers.
Jackie or Michelle?
Because voters don’t want to see it. This is sort of interesting and I’m all for “make love not war,” but my main point was that your contentions about sports were ridiculous. It’s part of our culture, it’s not inherently baser than a lot of other things presidents do, and sports is not just about tribalism and beating and conquering people. It’s easy to get that impression if you hang out with a few drunks who like sports, but saying it indicates you don’t get sports, which means your opinions on their cultural value/worthlessness isn’t well informed. At their best, sports express a lot of the same values as other arts.
Or maybe you could read the discussion that you’ve stuck your nose into.
Hint: check out post #48, and #34 for good measure.
Thomas only hurt himself. Being received by the President at the White House is supposed to be an honor, not a burden. If he didn’t want to go, that’s fine and dandy and his absolute right as an American, but all he accomplished was to make himself look like a guy who is just full of himself.
I think my opinions are quite well informed. I’ve grown up entirely in this society, which loves sports, I’ve spent time as a sports enthusiast, some of my closest friends and relatives are sports enthusiasts. I’ve had a lot of data and experiences from which to draw my conclusions. They might disagree with your conclusions, or perhaps the conclusions of 90 percent of the public, but that’s not because of my failure to “get” anything.