Should the NBA play on Christmas?

The NBA season is set to get underway tomorrow on Christmas Day, and while I am extremely excited to watch basketball again, I wonder if it is right to force these players to play on Christmas instead of allowing them to celebrate the holiday with their families.

Everyone would like to be free to celebrate Christmas with their families, and the players are no exception.  They too have much better things they'd rather do than play basketball to entertain everybody, and if no one else is working, why should they have to?

On the other hand, the NBA is a business, and the leagues make a lot of money off these Christmas Day games, so I can certainly see how it makes sense from a business standpoint to make these players play.  Plus, these athletes are getting paid big time money.  The league minimum is $400,000, and I'd certainly give up a few hours of my Christmas for $400,000 a year.

The NBA season will start on Christmas Day.

What do the players and coaches in the league think about being forced to work on Christmas?  Well, for the most part, they're opposed.

"If you ask any player in the league, we'd rather be home with our families," Heat forward LeBron James said. "I think the people that even set the games up would rather be home with their family during this day. It's not just a regular holiday. It's definitely one of those days that you wish you could wake up in the morning with the kids and open up presents."

Former Lakers' Coach Phil Jackson agrees with him.  "I don't think anybody should play on Christmas Day," he said.  "It's like Christian holidays don't mean to them anything any more."

Heat Coach Erik Spoelstra sees it differently and views it as an honor to play on Christmas.  "When your team is viewed as a contending team, you normally play on the holidays and we view that as a good thing."

With all things considered, I don't think it's right to play on Christmas.  Is basketball essential to Christmas?  No, of course not.  Christmas is about spending time at home with family.  Fans and players should have much better things to do than watch and play basketball.  Stan Van Gundy, coach of the Magic, went far enough to say that he would "feel sorry" for any fan that had "nothing better to do than watch an NBA game" on Christmas, and I would too.  There are better things than basketball on Christmas, so I think these games should no longer be scheduled to allow players and coaches to celebrate the holiday as they please.

What do you think?  Should the NBA continue their tradition of Christmas Day games because it is an honor and it makes them a lot of money?  Or should they stop scheduling games on Christmas in the future to allow players and coaches the right to spend time with their families?

Occupy Movement Causes Disruptions

Last month, our class spent a lot of time focusing on civil liberties and determined when, if ever, they should ever be limited.  In our essay, I wrote that the freedom of speech should not be oppressed unless it has violent intentions.

The Occupy Wall Street movement that has swept across the country has not been violent, so I believed it to be a completely just way to express dissent.  Now, however, it has gone on too long and become disruptive, so I think their rights as protestors need to be limited.

Occupy Wall Street protestor holding a sign with their slogan,
"We are the 99%".

The Occupy movement, which began in September, protests against corporate greed, saying that the nation's wealthiest 1% hold an unfair sway over the remaining 99% of the population.


Protestors in Oakland on Monday night forced the city to shut down a port, which "cost the Port and City of Oakland vital resources."


This is not the only example of this protest causing disruptions that have hurt businesses.  In fact, weeks ago the Huffington Post reported that the Occupy protests have cost the nation's cities at least $13 million, and that number has certainly increased since then.


Manager of the Oakland port Robert Bernardo said "They hurt the many businesses that pay taxes and help us create jobs."  This is all very ironic because by protesting, they are hurting themselves by disrupting the businesses that create more jobs.


The Occupy movement should focus on "real solutions to the problems plaguing our economy,"  suggested Omar Benjamin, Port of Oakland Executive Director.  These protests are no longer accomplishing anything and are simply causing a distraction and hurting our economy, so I think the government needs to control them by enforcing limitations on their right to protest.

Tatt-poo for Cheating

Rossie Brovent, from Dayton, Ohio, wanted a scene from Narnia tattooed on her back.  Instead, her ex-boyfriend Ryan Fitzgerald gave her a nice steaming pile of poo tattoo all across her back.

Apparently, he did this because he found out about her cheating on him, and instead of lashing out at her, he played it cool and convinced her to get a tattoo so he could get back at her.  She, in return, has hit him with a $100,000 lawsuit.

The article above reports that Brovent tried to have Fitzgerald charged with assault, but she could not because she had signed a consent form agreeing the tattoo design was "at the artist's discretion".

Brovent claims she was "tricked" into agreeing to it after getting a little drunk, but still the phrase "at the artist's discretion" intrigues me.

I know what Fitzgerald did was terrible, because now this poor girl has to walk around with that on her back for the rest of her life, but I don't think she has any right to sue him due to the fact that she agreed to it being at his discretion.

In America, a signature is a very powerful thing, as it ratifies almost any legal document.  In my opinion, the fact that she signed a consent form allowing him to choose the design, although she apparently had a specific one in mind already, means she has to deal with whatever he decided to choose.  It's terrible for her, but she deserves it for being foolish enough to sign that.

What do you think?  Should Rossie Brovent win the lawsuit?  Are signatures too powerful in the United States?