While I do see what the author is saying, I can't fully agree with it. Yes, most of America may have "a capacity to absorb difference," but there's always that small percentage of people who are unaccepting, and just plain old mean, to people who are seen as "different."

I like that the author included this quote because it gives insight to the people who might not know much about Islam.

I think that the author included this quote to almost show the audience how the players were able to stay so motivated through such a difficult time. The struggle made them work even harder.

Here the author is showing us what the players had went through together. Even though it was difficult, they always had each other to keep themselves motivated.

This is really admirable. The fact that he stayed true to his beliefs, all while doing something so physically exhausting and demanding, really shows the kind of person Ali is.

The author starts off the article with both imagery and foreshadowing. These are really good techniques to keep the audience on edge, and make them want to continue reading on.

This simple line couldn't be anything but true. The players really are risking their sanity and their lives, all for a bit of cash.

Even after Boogaard?? Is it because they're afraid to lose money?

This really surprised me. Why was Boogaard's case so bad?

He was becoming depressed, yet he still refused to admit it directly. This probably worsened his drug and alcohol addiction.

They were using him, at a time he was most unstable, for their own benefit. And they knew it too. Horrible.

The way that Boogaard went to multiple rehab programs just shows how he really wanted to change. He knew that he wasn't the person he'd used to be. Unfortunately, however, his troubles outweighed his desires.

Boogaard believed that the drugs would help him with the emotional pain, along with the physical.

I feel like this shows a good example of work and play, and how difficult it is when one finds their career and enjoyment in the same place. Things clash. While the average person may be able to take a break from their "work" by going to their "play," it's not the same for Boogaard. He never gets a break.

I'm sure that with all of these issues there was a lot of pain involved, yet he still refused to tell a soul. This shows how much he truly loved hockey. Out of fear of losing something he loved, he kept his pain to himself. I'm sure this was really hard.

I don't know why the author is comparing Boogaard's brain to food, but it's pretty disturbing.

I’m kind of confused why that is his family’s first concern. Hockey is such a dangerous sport. Why aren’t they worried about the more serious things like concussions and permanent brain damage? What makes writing, specifically, so important?

I noticed that the author uses a lot of foreshadowing. I remember in the first article, the author only briefly talked about Boogaard's drug addition, Now, we are finally figuring out how it started.

I have a feeling that this is what caused his drug addiction. It's impossible for someone to keep all of these things to themself without going completely insane. It isn't healthy.

It’s ironic how someone so intimidating on the ice is actually really sweet and gentle underneath it all.

From this I can assume that the majority of people who go to watch hockey games only do so because of the fights, rather than for the actual game itself.

It surprises me how there are so many unspoken rules about the fighting side of hockey. It seems strange to me. Almost as if the fights are planned. As if the players are not only encouraged to fight, but are expected to.

Why do they do it if there is a penalty against it? Is it just to impress the fans?

Was he a fan favorite because he was good at hockey? Or because he was good at punching?

A question that’s been plaguing me ever since we started this unit was, “Why is violence such an essential part of hockey?” I know it’s because of my ignorance of pretty much all sports, but I pretty much thought that all one does during a hockey game is hit a puck into a goal. Apparently it’s much more than that. Has it always been this way?

Throughout the article, the author many times brings up the fact that Boogaard was shy and bullied during his school age. I feel like the author uses this repetition rhetoric to almost emphasize the irony in all of it. I mean it's really ironic how he was seen as amazing on the hockey field, but he was seen as the complete opposite in the classroom. Almost like he was living a double-life. Thanks Quianna!

This relates to earlier in the article where he said he played as a "vengeance against a lifetime of perceived doubters." Even parents used to bully him because of the way he looked at a kid.

If he was in the prime of his career, and he apparently loved what he was doing, then why would he have such a horrible addition?

They say accidental, but in reality they have no way of knowing. Maybe the stress of constantly being under the spotlight, and the stress of playing the game itself, got to him.

The author uses a simile here to show how quick the fear can come an go.

The author is making it sound like a full-on war is about to ensue.

At this point, I'm still wondering why Boogaard is doing this to himself. It's mentioned before that he hadn't slept, so he's obviously under some stress. At the beginning of this article it's said he knew he must fight, but the question why has yet to be answered.

The way the player said this so openly really surprised me. I know some people take sports seriously, but serious to the point of death threats?? Is that common??

This is a direct example to the double-meaning rhetoric that we've been talking about in class. The author used the word "collided," one way in a literal sense, and another in figurative sense.

While discussing the possible theme for this text with my partner in class today, we put together the reoccurring topics of friendship and tragedy. When people go through traumatic events together, it strengthens their bond, becoming even closer than they were before.

Throughout this text, the author asks many rhetorical questions, including the one in this example. Others include, "Who's going to kick now that Billy Johnston is gone?" and, "How will they even get a play off?" along with many others. I believe he does this in order to create a dramatic effect. Asking a rhetorical question gets the audience thinking, and maybe even creates suspense, as the questions often time don't get answered. This tactic also shows how interested the author is in the topic itself. He wouldn't ask all of these questions if he didn't care.

When reading this section I was instantly reminded of my own experiences on a team. When you are on a team, there is a good chance that your fellow teammates are your closest friends. These are the people who you are pretty much always with, multiple hours a day, almost everyday of the week. There's no doubt that with all of that time, you are bound to become a family.

This small section was very interesting to me. It really shows the reality in the fact that traumatic events really bring people together. There is a saying that says,"You don't realize how much you love something until it's gone," and this is a prime example. The people had lost their beloved players, and in order to honor them, they showed up to the first team meeting in order to make sure that their legacy will go on.