Obviously it's not saying "World Champion Boston Red Sox" over, and over, and over, repeatedly, that I have absolutely no problem with.
It's the fact that now every team in the world, regardless of talent level believes they can overcome whatever non-existant curse they think they might have. Who actually believes the Philadephia Eagles are cursed? So why are their fans carrying signs saying "Reverse the Curse" and "RED SOX; Mickleson; Eagles"? I didn't even believe the Red Sox were cursed, but at least there was an incident in time that you could point to and say "This. This is where it all went wrong!" ( Collapse )
Do they have those moments? I don't know. Somehow I doubt it. The Red Sox, who worked their butts off all season and post-season long, and never gave up, have somehow become the poster children for every bloated, talentless team whose fanbase, for whatever reason, feels a sense of entitlement to the championship.
I hate to agree with hapless radio announcers, but I heard, I think on ESPN radio, a comment about how no one has an owner who loves their team as much as George Steinbrenner, and he's willing to invest the money to make his team that best and the greatest, and that if any other owners loved their team as much, they would spend as much to get good talent. I didn't believe it then and I'm not sure I believe it now, and honestly, I can't even remember why I brought it up, but the point is that believing in a team is helpful, both for the fans and the team, but belief is not enough, talent, skill and the ability to batten down the hatches in rough weather is also important.
Someone just came in and suggested that half of the monies collected for our SuperBowl Squares at the office be giving to charity. Now I give money to charities thoughout the year, and I support various causes, but I'm not going to tell other people how to spend their money, or force them to subscribe to the charity of my choice.
He pointed out that they could choose the charity. I pointed out that if the winners chose the charity, they might just as well take all the money and donate it themselves. If I'm going to pay to send a check or whatever to charity, it's going to be my charity, my choice. I don't want to sound petty, but why should I be responsible for theoretically mailing a check for 12.50$ (half of 25$. Payout is 25$/quarter) to four different charities. I'm not going to be petty enough to deduct the cost of postage from the contribution, and I'd probably feel squigy about 12.50$ as an amount, so I'd end up tossing more money in, which I really can't afford right now because hoppie is concerned about how we pay our mortgage, and I'm concerned about how we get to my great Aunt's 80th birthday party (the aforementioned Las Vegas trip).
He walked away kinda mad at the idea that if they wanted to give to charity they'd have to do it on their own. What's up with that? Hello, personal responsibility to make the world a better place, maybe? Huh? Or is it only my job to make the world a better place.