Rubber Ducky, You’re Not the One

Yesterday, my local minor league baseball team, known since 1998 as the Akron Aeros, changed its name to the RubberDucks.

Awful.

The team’s owner claims the change is, in part, to pay homage to the city’s history as the capital of the rubber and tire industries. I understand this to some extent. Aeros always fell pretty flat for me. Aside from boasting a few native astronauts and being located in the state that claims itself as the birthplace of modern aviation, Akron has a fairly limited connection to aerospace.

Nevertheless, from a rebranding standpoint I have to wonder how much thought really went into the name change.  It’s weak – for several reasons:

The mascot isn’t exactly "athletic." I realize that minor league sports teams (and major league teams for that matter) tend to use monikers with local connections, and many are far from intimidating.  But a rubber duck?  C’mon. The first thing I thought of when I saw the announcement was Ernie signing in the bathtub on Sesame Street. I know minor league ballgames are supposed to be family friendly, but it’s possible to be a bit too juvenile, especially when one of the stated reasons for the name change is to honor the city’s blue collar roots.

The whole local “rubber” connection will probably get lost. Golden Flashes. Runnin’ Rebels. Fightin’ Illini. With occasional exceptions, in most instances of teams using a leading adjective, fans call them by their second name. In other words, the RubberDucks are going to be called simply, the Ducks. Honestly, I’m OK with that. The ballpark sits on a canal, which attracts plenty of waterfowl. Akron is surrounded by parks and small lakes that boast sizable duck populations. But if the owner’s reason for changing the name is to pay respect to the city’s industry, he certainly missed the mark. Regardless, Ducks is certainly preferable to the potential alternative, the Rubbers.

There are better options. I think it’s admirable that the owner wants to be deferential to the city’s history, and as a former Goodyear employee, it does resonate with me. But if you want to connect to the industry, there are countless names that can accomplish it without conjuring images of a tub toy. What about Vulcans? Or Roadrunners? Or even Rollers? All could be easily branded with rubber and tires in mind. The case for going with RubberDucks just doesn’t make sense to me.

To make things worse, while the team will introduce a new costumed mascot soon, it will continue featuring the old one, Orbit, at games. In case the linked image isn’t clear, I believe Orbit is supposed to be a hedgehog based off the old Sega game, Sonic. Not only is he outdated and irrelevant – he also terrifies my daughter.

So, to summarize, I feel the name change is misguided. In my opinion, it’s actually a step backward from the previous name, and from a branding standpoint, overshoots its intended target.

And don’t get me started on the Columbus Clippers.

The Joys and Pains of Being an Indians Fan

I haven’t always been a die-hard Cleveland Indians fan.  As a kid in northwest Ohio the ‘80s, I rooted for the Tribe, but loved the Mets (and the Broncos … and the Pistons).  I was the ultimate front-runner – something I’m not terribly proud of today.

 

Nevertheless, as I grew and matured, I found myself drifting away from the contenders and cheering for the local boys.  In the summer, that meant Indians baseball – those lovable losers on the lake.  My dad is the ultimate fan and it was hard not to absorb at least some of his die-hardedness when so many of our summer days involved sitting in the back yard listening to Herb Score merrily slur his way through countless 90+ loss seasons.

 

Of course, being a Cleveland sports fan requires an ample amount of self hate.  No Cleveland team has won ANYTHING in almost 50 years.  And, for the Indians, it’s been 65 long seasons since they hoisted a World Series banner.  They’ve come oh so close in recent years (’95. ’97. ’07.), but always ended up breaking our hearts which, in some ways, hurt more than the previous decades’ consistent mediocrity.

But still, we root, root, root.

The past two seasons, however – with their scorching hot starts, disastrous middles and meaningless finishes – have, I’m sure, tested even the most loyal allegiances.  They have manifestly demonstrated what it means to be a Cleveland fan.

To me, it boils down to a few simple tenets.  I call it the Six Stages of Indians Fandom.  It’s a basic set of principles that can properly temper expectations and emotions for even the most novice Tribe fan through the slog of 162 games – with its highs, lows and everything in between:

Stage 1 (April) – Cautious Optimism: “Hey, we looked good in the Cactus League and are off to a solid start. We’ve got a few holes to fill, but I like what I’m seeing!”

Stage 2 (May) – Exuberance: “Holy sh*t!  We’re in first by a country mile!  We just swept the Tigers!  We’re on our way, baby!”

Stage 3 (June) – Wavering Hope: “Oof, rough start to the month, but we’re still leading the division.  If we can just play .500 ball the rest of the way, we should coast into the Playoffs.”

Stage 4 (July) – Rage: “How in the hell did we limp into the All Star Break on an eight game losing streak!?  I mean, seriously, how many f***ing saves can we blow in one month!?  Our closer’s an All Star for crying out loud!”

Stage 5 (August) – Disbelief: “I haven’t checked on the Tribe in a while.  I wonder how they’re doing.  What!? They’re 15 games out!?  Gahh!”

Stage 6 (September) – Apathy: “The Browns are 3-2, including the preseason.  I like our chances for the #6 Wild Card this year!  Woof!  Woof!”

As of this writing, the Indians are 2-0 and looking to sweep their season-opening series in Toronto.  Will this be the year they break the cycle?  I'm cautiously optimistic!

Itchy Trigger Fingers

Somewhere in America right now, a kid is brooding.  His girlfriend is cheating on him.  He just got fired from a job he hated.  His grades are suffering and his teachers are breathing down his neck.  The more popular kids pick on him and laugh at him.  He’s at his breaking point, ready to end it all.  But, he wants to go out in a blaze of “glory.”  Maybe get a rifle and take out a few antagonizers with him.

But he can’t, so he won’t.

That hypothetical situation has been stewing in my head all week, as I listen to calls to arm teachers, loosen restrictions and proliferate guns to more people.  The rationale being that more guns means more safety, e.g., a more heavily armed populace increases the likelihood that someone would be present and able to prevent a shooting.

While I see the individualistic logic behind a theory like this, it’s terribly flawed on a global scale.  In fact, it’s so flawed, that one of the key arguments in its favor actually works against it.

The gun advocacy crowd argues that new restrictions and regulations on certain weapons (semi-automatics, large volume magazines, etc.) won’t make a difference because “the bad guys will still find a way to get them.”  That’s true to an extent, but it’s also a very specious claim for a couple of very simple reasons:

• All laws get broken from time to time, even by me. I drive too fast. I jaywalk. I drank before I was of legal age. I’ll bet you’ve committed some of those crimes too, and more. Does that mean we should scrap the laws against them? No. Now that I’ve admitted to it, does it mean I’ll never jaywalk again? Unlikely. Laws exist to deter people from committing crimes, with the realization that they will sometimes get broken and when people get caught, there will be consequences to pay. In other words, as the gun advocates say, people are still going to get shot occasionally no matter what the law says. BUT, is that justification for inaction? Yes, criminals will still be able get their hands on guns, but shouldn’t we do everything in our power to make that as difficult as possible for them?

• Even with better training, improved mental healthcare, etc., doesn’t the law of averages indicate that more guns will equal more shootings – whether they be accidental, homicidal, suicidal, in self-defense or otherwise?  I’ll use some partially made up numbers to state this case: In 20XX, 44 million people in the U.S. owned guns and 20,000 people died as a result of being shot.  That’s one death for every 2,200 gun owners.  Let’s assume we increase the number of gun owners to 60 million.  We’d need to reduce the fatality rate to one in 3,000 gun owners to hold steady at 20,000 deaths.  Obviously, as more and more guns flood the market, those rates would need to continue declining rapidly and the statistics show they probably would not (suicides and accidental shooting deaths far outnumber mass homicides).  At the end of the day, with more guns, there will be more funerals.

Going back to my first paragraph – there are many more Dylan Klebolds and Jared Loughners and Adam Lanzas in the world.  There always will be.  They’re deranged, impulsive and think violent thoughts.  All they need is something to “flip the switch.”  We’ve all probably crossed paths with someone like this in our lives (maybe at some point, some of you were that person but thought better of lashing out).  I, for one, would prefer that we do everything possible to make obtaining weapons of destruction a real pain in the ass for them.  If nothing else, it would give them time to ponder the reality and consequences of their actions, and maybe make them realize the folly of their radical thinking, or at least decide it’s just not worth the effort.

Isn’t jumping through a few extra hoops and waiting a few more days to get your new hunting rifle worth at least that much?

Welfare Child

When I was born, my father was a broke college student and my mother worked at one of the campus cafeterias.  Upon dad’s graduation, he accepted a low-paying teaching job at a small rural high school while mom took a part-time job at the local bakery.

 

To put it bluntly, we were poor.

 

Not dirt poor.  We were never left wanting for food, clothing or shelter.  But, in those early belt-tightening days, mom and dad couldn’t necessarily guarantee all three without a little assistance.

 

So they did what millions of Americans are forced to do every day.  They swallowed their pride and asked for help from the government.  They went on food stamps and, consequently, were able to maintain a healthy family unit through those first few difficult years.

 

We were, as some might put it, part of the 47%.  The takers.

 

Fortunately, our dire financial circumstances didn’t last long.  When I was a toddler – shortly after the birth of my siblings – dad got a nice pay raise when he was hired at a bigger school (and a few years later at the local community college) and mom went to work at an optometrist’s office in town.

 

My parents were able to get off the government dole through ambition, determination and hard work.  By the time I finished high school, we were living the definition of the middle class American Dream, complete with a nice house, annual family vacations and plenty of other comforts that many people are forced to do without.  All in all, we represented a very American ideal – we were a self-made success story.

 

But, my folks weren’t really 100% self-made, were they?  Without a taxpayer-sponsored safety net to help kick-start their future, I shudder to think what might have happened to our family.  Would we have been able to ever climb out of poverty?  Would my brother and sister have ever been conceived?  Would we have had chances to play sports, go to Disney World and eventually graduate from college with minimal debt?

 

The answers to all those questions is, of course, “who knows?”  But, I think it’s safe to assume that my mother and father would have had to sacrifice at least some of the luxuries they were able to provide.  And, I can say with some certainty that I would not have the opportunities I have today if it weren’t for the help we received way back in the late ‘70s.

 

I share this because I hope it helps at least a few skeptics connect the dots.  That it helps them realize the average person collecting welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, etc. is not a lazy freeloader, but more likely someone who has fallen on hard times and may not be able to get back onto his or her feet without a little boost.

 

Are there people who game the system?  Sure, and they need to be held accountable.  But would you take away from the many who aren’t to punish the few who are?

Dear Sarah...

"I’m speaking up for him and his 1st Amendment rights and anybody else who would wish to express their not anti-gay people sentiment, but their support of traditional marriage..."

- Sarah Palin, defending Dan Cathy, President of Chick-fil-A

--

Dear Sarah:

Please study up on the Constitution.  The First Amendment protects individuals from being LEGALLY punished for their speech.  Last time I checked, no one from Chick-fil-A has been arrested for speaking up against gay marriage.

If anything, this is an ideal case study for what makes our democracy great.  Dan Cathy can say basically whatever hateful things he wants with NO fear of government reprisal (the deal with idiot running Boston is a conversation for another day – his is the kind of over-the-top reaction that makes liberals look bad).  Conversely, consumers are well within their rights to choose not to do business with a company that attempts to undermine a lifestyle they support.

Think about that.  A captain of industry speaks his mind freely.  Some agree with his stance, some do not.  Those not in agreement campaign to boycott his business, while many who agree go out of their way to show support.  Ultimately, the business will succeed or fail based not on any actions of government, but on the feelings of consumers.  It’s the perfect marriage of democracy and capitalism which – if I remember my elementary school Social Studies correctly – are the two primary foundational principles upon which our Union was established.

In summary, Sarah, if you want your political views to be taken seriously by anyone outside the fringes of the Tea Party, please find yourself an old Civics textbook and start reading.

Sincerely,

All of us who apparently understand the Bill of Rights better than a former Vice Presidential candidate