Brutal First Week Of NHL 2012 Playoffs

The 2012 NHL Stanley Cup Playoffs have started off with a brutally violent week of hockey. I blame a lot of this on the NHL and how it has been conducting itself with regards to penalties, suspensions and dangerous hits. The penalty calls have been extremely inconsistent this year, and last year was already considered bad. This year no one knows what will and won’t be called because it’s entirely up to the discretion of the refs and whether or not they say a penalty or simply decided not to call it. Because of this, players are taking matters into their own hands, “getting even” by playing dirty and vicious.

It was widely talked about in the last half of the 2011-2012 season (this season) throughout the sports media that the refs in the NHL were clearly calling less penalties than in the first half of the season. It was clear to everyone that upper management had told the refs to ease up on penalty calls. Now we’re in the playoffs, and some refs are calling things tight again while others are barely calling anything. Even within a single game the calls are extremely inconsistent, largely depending upon which team is winning and by how much at any given point. Add this to the small (couple of games) suspensions for “intent-to-injure” hits throughout the year, despite the league stating that it wants to take such incidents seriously, and you get the UFC on ice. Boston winning the Stanley Cup last year also hasn’t helped, showing everyone that playing tough and dirty will win you games and possibly the Stanley Cup.

My mom made a funny comment about it all the other day. She said, “It’s like The Hunger Games on ice!” Yup. Whoever manages to survive, not get killed or taken out by injury first, will win. But if this keeps up, there’ll be no one left. We’re not even finished the first round yet and there’s still 3 more to go before the top prize is finally won.

To show you just how bad it’s been, here’s a list of major suspensions and incidents this passed week alone. And remember, this is just the first week (1 week) of the 2012 Stanley Cup NHL playoffs.

In Summary

17 games worth of official suspensions (on top of the games that some of the players were kicked out of part way through) and $22,500 in fines during the first week of playoffs. And this does not include the indefinite suspension of Torres (he goes before the disciplinary board on Friday).

The List

Game 1: Vancouver Canucks vs LA Kings: Canuck’s Bitz kicked out of game and suspended 2 Games for hitting Clifford’s head into the boards from behind with an elbow. Clifford suffered a concussion.

Game 1: Detroit Redwings vs Nashville Predators:  Predator’s Weber slams Zetterberg’s head into glass twice at the end of game. Weber was fined $2500 and Zetterbeg was uninjured on the play.

Game 2: New York Rangers vs Ottawa Senators:  Ottawa’s Konopka was fined $2500 for loudly trash-talking Boyle as Boyle was in the middle of a live on-ice interview. Ottawa’s team was fined $10,000.

Game 2: New York Rangers vs Ottawa Senators:  Ottawa’s Carkner sucker punches Boyle and repeatedly punches him on the ice when he goes down. Carkner kicked out of the game and given 1 game suspension. Boyle was not seriously injured. Dubinsky was also kicked out of the game for being the “third man in” on that same “fight” sequence.

Game 2: New York Rangers vs Ottawa Senators:  Ranger’s Hagelin elbows Ottawa’s Alfredsson in the head getting a 5 minute major penalty and 3 games suspension. Alfredsson is out with concussion.

Game 2: Phoenix Coyotes vs Chicago Blackhawks:  Chicago’s Shaw nailed goaltender Smith in the head with his shoulder and was suspended 3 games. Smith was shaken on the play but not seriously injured.

Game 3: Pittsburgh Penguins vs Philadelphia Flyers:  Pittsburgh’s Asham crosschecks Schenn in the neck then punches him when he falls to the ice. Asham was given a match penalty and suspended 4 games. Schenn was not seriously injured.

Game 3:  Pittsburgh Penguins vs Philadelphia Flyers:  Pittspugh’s Neal suspended 1 game for 2 dangerous hits against Couturier and Giroux. No penalties called on either of the two hits in the game.

Game 3:  Pittsburgh Penguins vs Philadelphia Flyers:  Pittsburgh’s Adams instigated a fight with Hartnell five minutes before the end of the game. Adams was suspended for 1 game and the Penguin’s coach was fined $10,000.

Game 3: Boston Bruins vs Washington Capitals:  Washington’s Backstrom suspended 1 game for crosscheck to the face of Peverely at end of game 3. Peverely (remarkably) was not seriously injured.

Game 3: Phoenix Coyotes vs Chicago Blackhawks:  Torres suspended indefinitely after major hit on Chicago’s star player Hossa. Torres jumped at Hossa, leaving his feet and nailing Hossa in the head with his shoulder. Of note, no penalty was called on the original hit. The refs missed it completely. Hossa was taken off the ice on a stretcher and sent to the hospital. Also of note is that Chicago has made official statements saying how furious they are at the ugly and intentional injury-causing hit of Torres on Hossa… While only a couple weeks before, Chicago defended their defence-man Duncan Keith after he intentionally elbowed Canuck’s star player Sedin in the head and knocked him out with a concussion for the last part of the season and the first 3 games of the playoffs.

Penalties, Now (2012 Playoffs) And Then (2011 Playoffs):  On top of numerous suspendable plays that HAVE been called (and some that haven’t), as of the end of April 17 2012, a grand total of 804 penalty minutes have been called, which amounts to an average of 36.5 minutes per game. Compare this to the same number of games in last year’s playoffs where 564 penalty minutes were called, an average of 25.6 minutes per game.

Oh No! It's Intelligent Design, Educational, AND FUN!

(http://www.cellcraftgame.com/Home.html)

For the past half year or so I've had some ideas floating around in my head for a fun little educational strategy game based on creating a functional living cell. Well it turns out that someone with actual game design experience and education has beaten me to the punch. 

While reading an article about a small company that recently released a strategy tower defense RPG flash game, I noticed that the writer mentioned another game he had developed and released called CellCraft. I was immediately interested as it sounded EXACTLY like what I had been thinking about doing for a game. I looked it up and sure enough it did a lot of what I'd had in mind. It taught the Player about the parts and workings of a living cell. Good for the developer! I was a little disappointed that someone else had come up with a fun little game based on the same kind of idea, but I was also happy to see that such an idea had been put to good use already.

The underlying meaning of this game concept, however, is what initially poked my interest. The game was going to show the Player just how incredible the biology of a single cell was. How a single cell did all kinds of different things based on all kinds of different parts and chemicals in order to survive and accomplish what it needs to. What does all that marvellous structure and functional detail say about the incredible complexity of life? That it can't have happened by accident! It's SO detailed, SO interconnected and SO full of rich specific information and instructions to build and use all kinds of molecule-sized parts that the only way to describe it is to say that it is an astoundingly sophisticated self-sustaining miniscule biological machine. And where do machines come from? An intelligent designer and manufacturer, a creator.

This underlying theme was not at all lost on evolutionist educators who were at first impressed with the game and how it could teach the Player all about the different parts and functions of a single living cell... And then they realized the horrific truth. Neo-Darwinist evolution was mostly absent from the game and instead, the Player of the game was essentially an Intelligent Designer, an alien biologist (a platypus, in fact) constructing a living cell. Evolutionists and atheists immediately wrote articles attacking the game and stating that it was in no way educational or beneficial to any student who might play it because it promoted “Creationism”. 

Game reviews for CellCraft were very good and a lot of people were raving about the fact that the game was educational AND fun! People were saying how much the game taught them about cell biology and that they had a great time playing it too, a rarity in educational software.

“Where CellCraft excels is in the depth of the scientific material presented throughout the game.” “… a challenging and informative educational game with creative and satisfying gameplay mechanics.”

(http://www.brainsforgames.rachelnponce.com/2011/07/review-cellcraft.html)

“Played Cellcraft this morning, which turned out to be one of the best science education games I’ve seen in a while.”
(http://www.meme-hazard.org/blog/2011/06/12/game-review-cellcraft/)

“Now that I've played this highly educational, yet highly fun, game, I would ask they create more games like this.”

(http://omgn.com/review/2011/01/25/cellcraft-review)

So people without any sort of political bent in the debate between Neo-Darwinist evolution and creationism or Intelligent Design clearly thought the game was an outstanding and fun way to learn basic cell biology. Everyone was raving about its educational merits. Atheists, however, were NOT impressed.

PZ Myers, an atheist evolutionist who quite regularly takes on the issues of intelligent design vs evolution (from the pro-evolution and anti-creation perspective) wrote about the game under a blog post titled, "CellCraft, a subversive little game".

"... as a tool for teaching anyone about biology, it sucks. It is not an educational game, it is a miseducational game. I hope no one is planning on using it in their classroom."

(http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/cellcraft_a_subversive_little.php)

 The credits for the game include this damning few lines of text. 

"Also thanks to Dr. Jed Macosko at Wake Forest University and Dr. David Dewitt at Liberty University for providing lots of support and biological guidance."

Evolutionists discovered that two of the science contributors to the game were scientists that support the Intelligent Design belief that all life was Intelligent Designed and planted on earth by an Intelligent Designer (Creator). This belief basically states that life is far too sophisticated, complex and full of detailed specified instruction and information (like a massive computer program and intricate city all contained in a single cell) for it to have simply happened by the accidental chance combination of available chemicals of the universe. The atheists and evolutionists had their smoking gun.

As PZ Myers states, 

"Those two are notorious creationists and advocates for intelligent design creationism. Yep. It's a creationist game."

Yes, it's true, the game does not promote Neo-Darwinist evolution. It instead places the Player as the intelligent director and builder of a living cell and their parts. You, as the Player, simply collect the needed chemicals to build the parts and when you have enough of those chemicals, your part is build and added to the cell, giving it a new important feature. The game is structured and plays like a game should, while also providing a lot of information on cell biology that most people would have no clue about.

The atheists are mad because a couple of the scientists that the game’s science was double checked with believe in Intelligent Design, and the game itself does not contain much (if any) explicit references to evolution. They can’t complain about the actual science in the game, but that doesn’t matter. What irks them is the lack of evolution and the fact that the game does an admirable job of showing just how amazing and complex a single living cell is. That complexity can’t help beg the question, “How could this have ever ‘just happened’ by chance?” though such a question is never implied or asked in the game itself.

One furious atheist commenter online said about the game (slightly censored by myself)…

“motherf***ing insidious b*st*rds.

well, it's obvious not ALL of them are complete morons, though it's still the case that all of them are sleazy, underhanded, b*st*rds.”

Thankfully there are also many level headed and rational people out there (evolutionists and atheists included) that have posted comments in relation to the game in a much more positive light

“I don't care who makes the game, if I find it educationally useful.”

Some angry atheists freaked out because the game doesn’t directly preach evolution. In fact, it doesn’t directly preach ANYTHING! But it shows you just how desperate evolution must become in order to survive. Unless it is constantly pointed at, taught, included or spoken of as absolute truth, the incredible realities of life all around us testify to their magnificent and brilliant Creator, God.

The Hunger Games: Epitomizing The Point

Compassion? Sympathy? The value of a human life?

Violence, death, kids murdering kids… Laughter!?

I saw “The Hunger Games” movie last night and was quite impressed with how faithful to the book it was. I thought it was all very well done, but clearly a big part of the point in the story was entirely lost on some of the audience around me. Some people laughed out loud when a teenage girl in the movie ends up dead after being repeatedly slammed into a wall by a fellow teenage competitor in the gladiator-like to-the-death battle of The Hunger Games. They laughed! Laughed!!!

A big message (or point) in the book and the movie is that of desensitization to the suffering and pain of others, especially with regards to turning such things into entertainment. The Hunger Games are a yearly competition and reality television show consisting of a bunch of 12 to 16 year old kids picked at random from 12 impoverished city districts. These contestants must survive in a huge wilderness arena, survive the manipulations of the masterminds of the “game show”, and fight the other competitors to the death in order to be the last child remaining alive, the victor. This is all for the entertainment of the citizens of The Capitol, the ruling modern city that keeps all the other 12 Districts in poverty and servitude. For the Districts, The Hunger Games are torture and misery. They are required to watch as their children, their family, their friends, their loved ones, kill each other and face terrible danger and suffering until one young person manages to outlast the rest, becoming the “hero”, the winner of the survival game. Then it all happens again next year. The contrast between the horror and pain of the selected players compared against the vapid excitement and entertainment of the Capitol’s population is well portrayed in both the book and the movie, shining a blazing spotlight on our desensitization to violence, human suffering, and our fixation with reality television.

And some people in the audience at the theatre laughed when one kid was murdered by another in a fit of rage. Folks, you epitomize the very point that the book and movie is trying to make. YOU are the heartless desensitized citizens of The Capitol, relishing the “real life” murder and mayhem. For The Capitol, The participants of the game are merely characters in a story made more potent by the background realization that these people are real and not just actors running off a script.

The whole premise of The Hunger Games is awful, terrible, tragic, and revealing. We root for the good guys, suffer as they suffer, and rejoice and laugh when anyone else (especially the “bad guys”) hurt or die. It reflects the fact that we have a great capacity to be inhuman and cold to each other and that our usage of feelings, compassion and love can be entirely situational. We care for the people we’re lead to care for or want to care for, and we mock and ridicule the rest. We cry when the characters we love suffer or die, and we enjoy the terror and satisfaction of seeing the “bad guys” hurt, lose, and die. It doesn’t even matter if these characters are children or teenagers, as the book and movie plainly points out.

Of course not everyone is like this. Not everyone is so desensitized, heartless, or easily manipulated. But it’s remarkable that in a society that constantly tries to push the message of love for our fellow man (or woman), that so much of our ability to love and care about a human life is based entirely on whether or not we like or don’t like someone.

This is completely contrary to the theme and message of Biblical Christianity. Morals are absolute, and so too should be compassion, kindness, sensitivity and love. The Bible is the story of mankind’s fall from grace and God’s work to correct our wrongs, to teach us, and to ultimately redeem us by way of great mercy and love. Every life has value and worth. Every hurt is painful to God. Not just when the “good guys” suffer. Love and compassion is not about merely caring for the people and characters you already like. Christ’s purpose is about loving and redeeming everyone, no matter who they are or what they’ve done. It’s rehabilitation and love for all mankind, despite what our mistakes and sins deserve. Compare that to laughing at another human being’s suffering and death, whether fictional or otherwise.

Look at your own life and think on these things. Look at yourself, at how you think about people in real life or fictional stories that you consume. You can shrug it off and say, “They’re not real.” Or “I can’t do anything to help them anyway.” Or “They get what they deserve.” But really? Check yourself. What does that say about you, and what if everyone behaved like that or thought like that? Is that how you want to be treated, or seen?

Don’t lose your heart. Don’t distinguish between those worthy of compassion and care and those that are not. We are all created in the image of God and we are all of great worth in God’s eyes. This should be the foundation of our moral character and values. Not whether or not we personally know or like someone.