I don’t write exclusively about my experiences as a parent here, and I wonder if that makes the title of the blog a little misleading. I would think that most of my audience isn’t here because of the parenting talk, but because of our existing relationships. still, should I consider renaming the blog?

In an abstract way, everything that I do or experience is filtered through the parental lens. Being a dad gives me a set of absolute boundaries and a code of conduct that informs every decision I make, so when I fret over money, jobs, writing, or even politics, my opinion is my dad opinion. I don’t even think I have a non-dad opinion anymore, which is probably for the best. My non-dad opinion would run towards being selfish and retaliatory. My dad opinion always has to consider “How would I want my son treated in the same situation” and because of that I have to dismiss the angry or petty indulgences AKA why I don’t give other drivers the finger.

For a while, I tried to tell myself that all parents made decisions based on their kids, in an effort to humanize people I disagreed with on social and political issues. I would tell myself to remember that “Stephen Harper loves his kids too”, and that did lessen my fury for a bit. But it’s not working for me anymore. Maybe he loves his kids, sure, but he doesn’t give a tinker’s damn about the kids below the poverty line, and I can’t let that slide.

With the immediate and unfiltered nature of my blogging attempts, my hearty band of dedicated readers (hello, you gorgeous people, you) get the full intensity of my moods. Of course, since I blog when I’m in the midst of some sort of event or crisis, this also means that you get a skewed perception of my overall mental state.  Most of the time, I am a pretty calm and balanced person, despite my wailing and railing in electronic form. I think that most people go through the same swing of emotions, especially when stressful life situations come up. Then again, I may be fully exhibiting symptoms of a variety of psychological maladies. I don’t think I am, but if you’re ever sure that I have gone fully around the bend, flag me down and have a talk with me.  Most of the time, though, treating this blog as a confessional/diary seems to help in the process of understanding and dealing with my peculiarities, so I appreciate your patience while I get my brain in order.

Speaking of emotional moments, I was surprised to find out that the return of Sidney Crosby meant so much to me. For those readers who don’t know, Sid is a very talented Canadian hockey player, possibly the best of his generation, and he has been unable to play the game that he is so good at for the last 10 months, due to concussion symptoms. For the last few months, I have been trying not to consider what it must feel like to be unable to pursue your dream, and possibly have to give it up for good because it might kill you. The image of Sidney sitting in a dark room, unable to endure even watching tv because of the headaches and other associated concussion symptoms, weighed heavily on my mind. so when his return to the sport was confirmed on sunday, I was thrilled. even the pre-game footage of Sidney getting ready to play brought a little tear to my eye. I was also worried for him, and for the first few minutes of the game, I held my breath and hoped that he wouldn’t get that one fateful hit that would send him back off the ice, this time for good. I’m sure I’m not the only one. Hopefully, I’ll stop worrying about the state of his brain, and go back to enjoying him displaying his gift for the game.

You may have missed it, but a new minor league professional baseball team has come to London, and they have unveiled their team name: The London Rippers. My friends and I have used the word ‘ripper’ as slang for ‘stripper’ for years now, though I have no idea why we thought shaving off one letter would somehow improve the word. Anyway, that’s not the ripper they’re talking about. By looking at the logo of the team:

You can see they are alluding to Jack the Ripper, prostitute murderer and now, baseball mascot.  Unpleasant and inappropriate by most standards.

The argument around the name and image has been interesting. On two different occasions, people have mentioned that there are other established teams with offensive names. The first time, it was brought up by someone defending the name and the owner’s right to choose it. Their argument was that, since these other teams (Eskimos, Blackhawks, Crusaders) have offensive names and no one was actively protesting them, this name was acceptable.  The second mention was specifically about the local high school team The Crusaders. This person was wondering why people were upset about the Rippers, but not upset about the Crusaders. His viewpoint seemed to be against all offensive names in use. So both sides of the argument over the new team’s name have cited the same situation, which points out the problem.

Each one of these names may be offensive to some people, and in a case by case basis, the wisdom of public opinion may come out in favour of the names being changed. But when you broaden the argument out to encapsulate the entire list of potentially offensive names, you increase the breadth of the discussion to an unwieldy size. Instead of focusing on the specific name being proposed and whether or not it meets the expectations of public sensibility, you’re now debating about the moral and ethical implications of several disparate elements, each with their own history and context.

Specifically, the argument against the ‘crusader’ name isn’t well suited as a comparison to the current situation. There are many people who see the crusades as a terrible instance of humanity’s willingness to commit atrocities in the name of religious devotion, but there are just as many people who still believe that the crusades were mandated by the divine will of god. In this case, public sensibility isn’t in any way unanimously opposed to the name. And, in context, the name was chosen for the high school’s sports teams when the school was opened in the 1950s, and the name was perfectly inoffensive at that time. Has public opinion on the crusades changed? Somewhat, but not to the point where you could reasonably expect a sudden name change.

In comparison, there is no one anywhere who would support the idea that a serial killer is in anyway inoffensive or appropriate for a general audience. The team owner and his advertising staff were well aware of the negative associations that would come along with their team name and mascot, and they chosen to go ahead anyway.

For the record, I do not think that anyone has the right to force the team owner to change the name. It’s an awful name. I don’t like it. But it’s not offensive enough that it impinges upon anyone’s civil rights, and so the owner has the right to name his business as he sees fit. The community will show their displeasure by not attending the games, and letting advertisers know that they do not support anyone who works with the team. And, if city council does their job correctly, they will assess that the community does not support or approve of this business, and exclude the team from any promotional materials or tourism programs.