Category: Opinion

Since I became what’s been called a ‘professional blogger’ (not my words), I actually realized that by getting paid (well enough) to write content, that I am indeed a professional blogger just as much as a minor league hockey player is a professional athlete.

Having been told that I’ve been anchoring the most successful NHL site on Fansided’s network, I’ve been asked for advice. The only advice I had to give was to network. Bloggers need to be linked and referenced on other sites. That’s how Gunaxin works and that’s how Capitals Outsider works.

Some bloggers, however, don’t care about that. They just go out and write content but do little to nothing to promote their stuff. It’s like they’re playing a game of make-believe. They’re essentially kids playing ‘reporter’ and showing their article to their parents. Why would bloggers spend so much time writing content that no one reads?

Now, I’m not talking about diary blogs, or unleash-the-thoughts blogs, like this one. I’m talking about blogs that have a theme, particularly sports blogs.

I’ve counted approximately 50 Capitals-themed blogs. There are likely more, but it’s hard to keep up when all it really takes to create a blog is to open a free WordPress or Blogger account. But when I started looking at the Alexa site rankings of these blogs, not only did I realize that very few people read them, but some of the higher quality ones were lacking in readers, too. I’m not entirely sure what drives people to write content that no one reads, but perhaps it’s the same thing that drives me to write short stories though I know they aren’t going to be published. It’s a hobby.

Bloggers have been getting a ton of praise lately for the hard work they’re doing, but the reality is that many of them don’t have a consistent audience and don’t generate any revenue. These are the people who think 50 pages views are ‘a ton.’ If an article of mine on Gunaxin only got 50 page views, I wouldn’t be able to afford to eat. And to think, I used to work at a place that spent upwards of a grand on an article that very few people read. Seems like a waste of money, to me.

All I can say is, I’m glad I ‘made it’ as a blogger, and it’s all thanks to Gunaxin and Capitals Outsider, which are sites that get page views and generate revenue, something that bloggers should strive for if they’re actually serious about what they do. Otherwise, they might as well be kids playing make-believe.

I’ll admit that I watch the Jersey Shore. The characters have easily passed my test of what’s worth watching. I also watch Pawn Stars, mainly to learn about the business, but also because of the characters.

To think that these people became famous for being nothing more than themselves. And while I believe that most reality television isn’t worth watching at all, I must applaud the formula that television has found in the past decade and exploited.

There once was a time when every season, the networks had to take chances on many forgettable sitcoms and dramas, which only really helped those involved find work for a while. And while not every reality show is a success, it’s certainly less of a gamble than putting up yet another poorly-scripted sitcom that no one watches. So now that it’s reality television first, old-school writers and actors lose out, because they’re getting fewer and fewer chances to make an impression.

Diminishing the chances for writers and talented actors may keep more failed sitcoms off the tube, but it’ll prevent some very talented people from ever catching the break that they need to provide us some actual entertainment. If Friends, Seinfeld, or Cheers were pitched to the network these days, chances are that two of them wouldn’t even make the cut.

At the same time, it’s great that ‘ordinary people’ can find fame on reality TV, which isn’t easily done in other fields, like sports and politics. The question is, how long will it last before these reality shows become more difficult and expensive to produce, and the networks suddenly find themselves accepting pitches from a new batch of talented writers?

Hopefully soon, because in the end, talent wins. Sorry, Snooki.

An Arab-Israeli Christian who came to the United States who randomly stabs black people, killing five, injuring many more (see article from The Post).

You can’t make this up. All the good serial killer movies are based on real life (white) killers in whole or parts, then this guy comes along, completely changing up the typical lineup of crazy white loners.

Or, maybe that whole white loner thing was wrong from the start, and was only connected to several high-profile cases while many other people of different races were running around killing people, too. Certainly, we all learned something with the D.C. snipers, but as the facts came out about John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, things started making a bit more sense.

But really, an Arab-Israeli Greek Orthodox Christian who stabs black people in the U.S.? What next, a white Nova Scotian Hindu who moves to South Africa to run over old ladies with his Trans Am?

Surely more information will come out about Elias Abuelazam. We’ll learn that when he was a kid, he enjoyed torturing animals and that he was sexually abused… you know, the obvious. But maybe not. And that’s the scary part, because when these freaks fit a typical description, we find them easier to lump together. But with guys like this, it seems that there is no longer a typical description. You know, except for being male.

Just about every hot-button issue has supporters and detractors who must act with the utmost professionalism to keep their credibility while presenting their arguments for their cause. But there are two subjects that I’ve seen in the past 20 or so years that seem to be immune to this, and what we’re left with is watching ‘respected’ people resort to illogical arguments and name-calling, and they are still applauded by a brainwashed public for their efforts.

No matter what happens in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, whether it is a blockade, another Gaza invasion, or a fence, the debate seems to always boil down to the same question. Does Israel have the right to exist? If the answer is no, the discussion is essentially over. There will be no agreement. However, answering no won’t keep the dialogue going, and no one wants to cave in and declare defeat, right? Oftentimes the reaction to this question is challenged as being unfair, or dodged completely, because few from the opposition wants to say yes and declare Israel’s legitimacy. This is where the debate often turns silly. For example, the controversy with the Turkish ‘relief’ ship and the deaths that followed led to renewed calls for an end to Israel’s Gaza blockade. Highly educated and respected people made this argument. The problem here is the very logic behind their argument is so backward that it should instantly destroy any credibility they ever had (yet they’re applauded by an equally delusional audience). They’re basically saying that Israel should unilaterally stop their security measures (perhaps ‘security’ is the debated word, here)… because… because… the people of Gaza deserve food, medicine, building materials, and weapons to attack Israel. I’m not quite clear on the position of those who wish to debate these points whether it’s okay that rockets and bombs are brought into Gaza and given to Hamas so they can attack Israelis. Not acknowledging these key points would earn a demerit in a Debate 101 course.

At the same time, when Palestinians complain that another hilltop in the West Bank is getting a new Israeli settlement, defenders of such actions are saying that Palestine has no right to exist. I’ll even buy the land-grab-to-later-trade-for-peace strategy, but that’s not really why it’s happening. And this is when the far-right Israelis put their foot in their mouths.

If you thought the Israeli-Palestinian conflict debate spawns a lot of relatively respected pundits to get away with ridiculous arguments, the abortion debate is Ground Zero for idiots to voice their opinions, from both sides of the spectrum. Even worse, people are so close-minded on this topic that they applaud the most immature and nonsensical of commentators.

Let’s start with the name-calling. First, the terms ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-life’ are political rhetoric used to paint a relatively positive name of the cause. In fact, ‘pro-pro’ could work with other debates, as well, though there likely aren’t other any topics in such desperate need of such labels to mask their true name. The word ‘choice’ is not synonymous with abortion rights and if anyone thinks it is, that just shows how embedded into their heads they made it. ‘Choice’ should refer to all real choices (but for the sake of debate, all controversial choices involving your body or life). I have the CHOICE to have an abortion, to do drugs, to commit suicide, to drink while pregnant (my body my choice). If you want to call yourself ‘pro-choice’ and really mean it, you pretty much need to believe in all of those causes. Otherwise, you hijacked the word. The same goes for ‘pro-life.’ Anyone who calls themselves ‘pro-life’ but is against abortion and for the death penalty has hijacked the word ‘life’ for their convenience. So, the proper terms for this debate are ‘abortion rights advocates’ and ‘antiaborion advocates.’ Not as pretty as pro-life and pro-choice. But at least they’re accurate labels. And anyone who uses the term ‘anti-choice’ to refer to an antiabortion advocate should automatically lose all credibility in the eyes of anyone with any common sense and isn’t blinded by the rhetoric that has ingrained itself into way too many heads these days. It’s as ignorant as someone saying ‘anti-life,’ a term that gets far fewer Google results than the just as ridiculous and inaccurate ‘anti-choice.’

Enough with the semantics. Name calling in this debate, which I’ve described above, has become an accepted part of our culture, even to the point that ‘unbiased’ journalists have been caught using the terms in news articles (I once saw a Newsweek author write ‘anti-choice protesters’ to describe a scene in a news story, which is a newsroom no-no). Even if either side was known as the accurate ‘abortion rights advocate’ and ‘antiabortion advocate,’ this debate is far from civil, and even bumper stickers scream ignorance. Anyone who believes they are being clever when they spout the phrase “if you’re against abortion then don’t have one” obviously has no understanding of the antiabortion movement. It would be like saying ‘if you’re against whaling, then don’t kill a whale,’ or ‘if you’re against murder, then don’t kill anyone.’ I think you get the point. Another oldie but goodie in the files of abortion rights advocates is to say that if abortion were outlawed, then it would lead to back-alley, aka ‘unsafe’ abortions. What they fail to acknowledge is that the antiabortion folks are against that, too. They’re not trying to outlaw abortion to drive more women to use coathangers. Sure, that would be an unfortunate side effect to a repeal of Roe vs. Wade but in no way would ever hinder their determination to outlaw it. It’s similar to painful, bloody suicides happening due to the illegality of legalized doctor-assisted suicide. Where are the anti-razorblade/noose/pill signs and marches around the Capitol for that?

There is virtually no angle of the abortion debate that hasn’t been argued a million times over, though the tactics in which the anti-abortion advocates use to fight legalized abortion have changed. Lobbying to make abortion illegal is one thing, but taking more immediate actions to reduce abortions often rubs the opposition the wrong way. That’s when the abortion rights advocates go on the defensive, name call, scream ‘unfair,’ or collectively lump all anti-abortion advocates together when one person murders a doctor or bombs a clinic. These are expected responses in defense of their cause, but again, the name-calling and eye-poking are too often an accepted and respected debate tactic.

The abortion debate also has a grab bag of ‘gotcha’ questions that each side asks the other, and the other one often dodges. “Should abortion be illegal even when the woman’s life is at stake?” “Should abortion be illegal in the case of rape?” (you’ll still hear some yes answers for that since ‘murder is murder.’) “If the baby can survive outside the womb then why should it be okay to abort?” (the late-term abortion debate). My favorite that no one can answer: “If abortion is okay, then why is Fetal Alcohol Syndrome not okay?” These are all questions that should make either side think about the consistency in their views, but too many people are too close-minded to even consider that there may be a hole in their argument. And that is why there will never be a consensus in the abortion debate.

No matter how passionate you are about either of these issues, and no matter which side you are on, don’t be drawn into what has become accepted debate tactics when they’re nothing more than immature arguments that wouldn’t hold up in less controversial issues.

Hamas, a known terrorist organization, controls the Gaza Strip. Therefore, for security reasons, Israel must control what gets in there (keep in mind that Egypt does, as well). Hamas is hellbent on destroying Israel and Israel isn’t about to make it easy for them to maintain this land.

Meanwhile, some Turkish activists decide, with MUCH fanfare and media coverage, “Hey, let’s send a bunch of stuff there, with thousands of activists, and bypass security. Let’s undermine Israel and deliver goods to a territory run by terrorists.” Israel instructs them to go to a certain port for security reasons. They don’t. Israel takes control of the ship and people are killed.

Outrage, right?

These activists wanted this. Aiding the people of Gaza wasn’t their goal. They wanted to stir the pot, make a mess, and fan the flames. That sends a much louder message to the world than ‘being charitable.’

Let’s also keep in mind that Israel let in eight of these other ships… you know, the ones without the activists with ties to militant organizations.

If you hate Israel, that’s one thing. But Israel is going to defend itself, and isn’t going to take crap from Turkish activists who don’t want to play by the rules. Being outraged by what Israel did is drinking the kool aid. Everyone knew this would happen the moment that these activists decided to ignore security procedures.

Where are the Somalian pirates when you need them?