Skip to main content

Boston Bruins goaltender Tim Thomas skips team meeting at the White House due to politics

The NHL champ Boston Bruins went to the White House yesterday to meet and be honored by the president, Barack Obama. MVP goaltender, Tim Thomas, was a no-show due to politics. He's a devout member of the Tea Party and released this statement regarding his absence, "I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People," the message read. "This is being done at the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal government.

"Because I believe this, today I exercised my right as a Free Citizen, and did not visit the White House. This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country. This was about a choice I had to make as an INDIVIDUAL.
"This is the only public statement I will be making on this topic. TT"
I thought about Thomas' actions for a few minutes. I'm all for a person expressing his or her opinion, for making a political statement (so long as it's non-violent), but don't support his decision here. I may not agree with Thomas' politics, but that isn't the reason I feel this way. He can believe whatever he wants to believe. That's his right. The reason I feel this way is because I think it was a selfish gesture on Thomas' behalf to both his teammates and the organization. Instead of the media's focus being on the Bruins' celebrating their Stanley Cup Trophy at the White House, it was instead on Thomas and his not appearing with the team. Instead of his teammates and the rest of the organization being asked by reporters about their time spent at the White House, they instead had to answer questions about why their goaltender didn't show. It was a very selfish gesture on Thomas' behalf and I'll be curious what will be said behind closed doors after this occurrence. 


Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...
2 comments
Read more

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...
2 comments
Read more