So with that, I present to you… a revival of this series, and hopefully a kickstart for far more to come!

.

MUST READ

“Ghost of Forsberg skates on,” a commentary by Denver Post sports columnist Mark Kiszla. I still follow hockey a bit — not like I used to — but with the Olympics going on, it’s hard not to. Swedish star Peter Forsberg is competing for his home country in the Olympics and the team, Tre Kronor (“Three Crowns,” the Swedish name for the national team) is on track to be one of the biggest competitors; they won gold in 2006 and look very strong this year, especially against last year’s silver-medal-winning Finnish team. Forsberg is one of my all-time favorite athletes, and while I have always enjoyed watching him play, it really feels like this is his big goodbye to hockey and I’m okay with that.

.

MUST SEE

The trailer for Food, Inc. It’s a documentary about the food industry in the United States, and one heck of an eye-opener. At least see the trailer, because you might just be intrigued enough to watch the entire thing; however, after watching the film, I definitely feel a bit uneasy about most of the food I consume.

.

MUST HEAR

“As Tall As Cliffs” by Margot and the Nuclear So & So’s. I had heard about this band before, and even tried to make it to one of their shows, but I never put in enough effort to actually give them a good listen or see them play. Next time I get the chance to see them I will not pass it up — their music is amazing, and this song is quickly becoming a favorite. Are they a bit “indie”? Sure. Does that mean they aren’t very mainstream? Pretty much. Is the music still good? Even better, if you ask me.

Why offended? Hey, some of us female sports fans are totally worth it.

Ah, if men only knew that this is no way to demand attention.

Here’s my extended response.

* * *

To Den, and those who commented on his blog:

Of course there’s loads of sexism in this. What did you all expect from the title (or from Den, for that matter)? Did you think this was going to be completely free of sexism? What would the point be if it wasn’t sexist?

There are pretty big differences between the following: 1) the girl who goes to *any* baseball game in a pink Yankees hat and her very best push-up bra and women’s-cut pinstripe jersey, 2) the girl who would defend perennial chokers like the Flyers until the end of the world *just* because she thinks that’s what being a “fan” means, and 3) the girl who can deal with sports, who likes it for the most part, and won’t ask stupid questions. Of course, outside of these categories are the girls who just don’t follow sports whatsoever, and we’re all better off if they keep their noses out of it anyways.

I really think that those are the three varieties of females who follow sports. Personally, I’m in the third category. Yeah, I went through my phase of NHL fandom and went the way of a passive fan by the time the lockout did its damage. (By the way, the NHL comment is probably the lowest point in the entire article, because I think a die-hard NFL girl is far scarier than an NHL girl — christ, Den, have you never seen a Raiders game?! Or if racing was a sport in my book… that’s a whole different topic, though.) And of course I have my league favorites in the NFL and MLB. But it doesn’t consume my life any more than the Victoria’s Secret Semi-Annual sale would.

(Though, I have to admit, the competitive quality of rooting for a solid team in a fantastic postseason matchup is far more appealing compared to the kind of battle that ensues over the last black 36C seamless bra.)

I’ve found that it’s quite the balance to not be a fan but to follow sports, and follow intelligently. It really is horrendous that one could even think about shaming a woman for having an interest in something remotely competitive. Is it more credible for a woman to be into, say, knitting — because it’s more womanly? Because it isn’t competitive? What is sport besides something that encourages competition in a physical, energizing way? What I see as possibly the most sexist part of this article is not in the blatant “I need material” statements about the gender roles in a typical household. Instead, I think this can be read as somewhat of a reflection of what men really do want: that women shouldn’t stake an interest in something clearly dominated by men, partially because men don’t want to be expected to have an interest in something considered feminine. What better way to encourage getting something one wants than to lob it out in hopes of reciprocation?

Anyhow, it would be any reasonable male sports fan’s loss to skip out on a woman who can score a baseball game but isn’t a raging Mets fan. Or to be intimidated by a girl who knows the difference between hooking and roughing (and I’m talking about the kind seen on the hockey rink). Think about it. Just how bland would a girl’s personality likely be if she was not a single bit interested in, or even aware of, the sports world? But how obnoxious would it be to date a girl whose entire life is consumed with year after year of obsessive support of some crappy team with no hope anyhow? To me, it’s like virtually any other category in which judging a person’s attachment to something can say a lot about that person; that is, moderation is key. I don’t think any chick is clamoring for some Masshole who could rattle off every stat for each Red Sox pitcher in the last decade, but no reasonable woman would ask her potential mate to give up sports entirely. Sports are just too relevant in Western society anymore for the audience to be divided by gender, despite the competitive aspect requiring division to some degree (i.e., women’s leagues). And personally, I’d be slightly concerned about a man who hasn’t shown an interest in a single sport on this earth. Especially an American man. Yeah, go ahead — call *me* sexist. But I find that American men who are uninterested in sports have been sheltered far beyond my point of tolerance.

Furthermore, it’s rather hasty to infer that a girl who is into sports *wouldn’t* be a book nerd (or at least a trust fund hippie). Women are a lot of things, and can fit into a lot of categories; shame on any man who stereotypes like that. Maybe Den hasn’t met his sports match, and has yet to be turned on by a girl’s sports knowledge instead of intimidated. Insecurity, anyone?

Plus, ya know… chances are, the sports-knowledgeable girl is competitive. And a competitive girl likes a spark. A guy who’s into sports? And a girl who’s into sports? Sounds like the makings of a good sex life to me. After overtime, that is.

Although he was a blossoming star in his native Sweden before anyone in the United States even knew his name, Forsberg’s journey to stardom was largely spent in Denver. His first Stanley Cup came in 1996 with the Avalanche, followed five years later with his second and, as of yet, last Stanley Cup. Throughout his tenure on the Avalanche, he was the darling of the city and topped the polls for favorite Denver athlete (at least in hockey) despite the popularity of Joe Sakic and Patrick Roy, whose careers have been defined by their time spent in Colorado.

Commonly called “Foppa” in Sweden (and no, it doesn’t mean “puck wizard” or any of that garbage, it’s actually a nickname in the way we shorten “Smith” to “Smitty”), the criticism and doubt he has received from American and Swedish press alike amounts to a lion’s share of opinion, gossip and speculation that certainly didn’t anticipate today’s development. Forsberg will return to the NHL wearing his #21 on the back of an Avalanche sweater.

Of course, some people are doubting this move. It’s no secret that the Swedish superstar has been injured quite frequently throughout his career, even during his time in Colorado. There’s a possibility that his acquisition could be a bust — but guess what? I don’t care.

Colorado is Forsberg’s rightful home. The trade from Philly to Québec, just prior to the franchise move from Québec to Colorado, was hailed as one of the best trades in recent NHL memory. Eric Lindros turned out to be a huge bust for the Flyers while the Avalanche prospered with two Stanley Cups. Not even Philadelphia’s post-lockout acquisition of Forsberg proved any help for the terribly unlucky (rather, terribly mismanaged) franchise, its Cup hopes falling short in the playoffs. When Forsberg was traded to Nashville, the expansion team was quickly booted out of the playoffs to no great surprise and really not much more than a ‘yawn’ from the city. Both teams put significant faith in Forsberg boosting the post-season results; when this didn’t happen, he was harshly criticized and was deemed a bad acquisition. This would never have happened in Denver.

Through the good times and the bad, we Coloradoans had been proud to have “Peter den store” (Peter the Great) on our roster. When he was put out of the playoffs for shoulder surgery sometime between the first Cup and the second, we were appalled at how Richard Matvichuk got away with yet another season-ending cheap-shot. When his spleen was removed during the playoffs of what eventually made for another Stanley Cup win, we mailed hundreds of cards to the hospital thanking him for his hard work and wishing him well. (And some of us made really goofy signs for the parade, saying things like “Saknar din mjälte nu?” — do you miss your spleen now?) We have never forgotten his contributions to the Avalanche, and we’re here to welcome him back with open arms.

And unlike things have gone in other cities, there will be no hard feelings against him if things don’t work out. He is our franchise player, our favorite athlete and our sports standout. It is a true honor to have him return to Colorado.

Peter Forsberg is home.