Power play in hockey and in world politics (#77; Topic F)

Sporting games are generally played with two sides having the same number of players -- except, to my limited knowledge, soccer and ice hockey. The latter, with but 5 players on each side in active play (the 6th being the goalkeeper), and with lightning fast action, the side with 1-player plurality has a huge advantage -- a 2-minute interval known as power play -- and is expected to score. On occasion, however, the short-handed side, with superb artistry, mounts a fierce counterattack and scores -- it is a beautiful scene to witness. In an earlier post (#75), I used the term in the context of the cartoon controversy -- I thought the analogy apt, but others took exception. In particular, I view myself as a mere spectator, rooting for neither side, since I have no ties to, or invested interest in, either side. President Bush, up to two days ago, were a mere spectator as well; though he has ties to one side, he conducted himself in relative objectivity. Then, when, receiving the King of Jordan in the Oval Office and being asked a specific question on this issue, he could not resist the temptation not to weigh in -- not unexpectedly, to the "freedom of speech" side, equivalent to Mario Lemuere being urged to enter the rink for Pittsburgh Penguins. Perhaps to reduce the one-sidedness of this contest, the King of Jordon, as the President's honored guest, had to enter the rink as well -- providing a countervailing view, saying something to the effect that provocateurs need to be "condemned" as well. While power play in hockey is suspenseful, it is nevetheless harmless; power play in world politics, on the other hand, is not only challenging but unpredictable as well.
Posted at 11:14 am, Friday, February 10, 2006