GM,
Still traumatized from hearing John Kruk try to analyze golf on Baseball Tonight, I'll do my best to assess not only the situation of the first major win by an Asian-born player but the assessment of it as well. About the time my boy, Padraig, quintupled to drop out of contention, I fell into a state of deep concern. A patriot through and through, how could I possibly route against Tiger, a figure who represents American dominance as well as Lance Armstrong or Michael Jordan? Then again, where's the fun in pulling for the favorite? Beating Tiger for a major will change Y.E. Yang's life!
I'll admit that he won me over, along with much of the gallery. Not since I browsed the web for a Takeru Kobayashi poster have I been so charmed by a foreign athlete. The eagle chip-in may be viewed as the shot that won it for Yang, but it was his approach on 18 that should impress most golf fans. Didn't he get a translated version of the memo?! You're supposed to cave under pressure just by seeing Tiger shave a stroke on the leaderboard. If you're in the final pairing with him and leading by one stroke on the 72nd hole of what has been taken for granted as his 15th major victory, you're probably supposed to wet yourself in the fairway.
Yang's victory alone is enough for anyone to completely dismiss the idea that Tiger is the most intimidating athlete in the world. Yang had every possible reason to collapse--he led by one stroke while Tiger's ball sat in the fairway--and he hit one of the most clutch shots I've ever seen. Quit being surprised, Tiger Nation. Your guy is human, even in majors. Just ask Rich Beem and Zach Johnson. "Who?" Exactly.
I'll leave you with two anonymous quotes from CBS.com's message board on the Michael Vick piece last night. Really, any message board reminds me that most people who type on them are semi-literate at best, but the points of view (assuming you can make heads or tails of them) are fascinating in this piece. Several people thought Vick deserves the death penalty! These were my two favorite, though.
"Lets be honest. If this killing field wasn't discovered and business as usual continued, unabated, I dare say Vick would have gone on to become one of, if not the greatest quarterback of our time." -Anonymous 1
"If you'd lost millions of dollars,because you were caught fighting dogs,the majority of you would probably commit suicide. And then 60 Minutes had the ordacity to have Mr. Brown interview Mr. Vick." -Anonymous 2
Brett Favre tomorrow.
-JW
JW,
If this post reads poorly, feel free to blame my excessive glee at Tiger's collapse yesterday in Minnesota, one of the top two or three most satisfying sports experiences of my life. Actually, let's strike that language. I watched Y. E. Yang's victory, not Tiger's loss. It's an important distinction, and one that few people will make correctly.
Take NBC Sports, for example, whose current poll asks if Y.E. Yang's victory over Tiger Woods is the greatest sports upset of all time! Yes, that's right. The Tiger mystique is such that the sports world literally can't believe it when he loses.
Or at least that's their story.
After all, who doesn't profit from the perception that Woods is not just a very good golfer in an extraordinarily weak era but The Greatest Player Of All Time? Sportswriters get dozens of centralized stories in a sport that's nearly impossible to write about given its decentralized storylines; television networks get a hook for casual fans; and advertisers get one of the few sure things in sports. Thus the narrative we'll spend the next week hearing: Tiger's still the same guy, he just choked one away. Choking, after all, is a one-time deal. Getting beat is forever.
At least I hope it is. As previously mentioned in this space, Woods is surely the most boring, childish big-time athlete ever to hog the American stage. Furthermore, lingering at the threshold of every Tiger story--hell, every Tiger conversation--is what I'll call the Steve Nash Effect. "Look what a great golfer Tiger is," we think to ourselves. "And he's black!" Like Barack Obama's, Tiger Woods' (partial) blackness has become uncomfortably involved with his branding, regardless of the fact that it has nothing to do with anything. Yet there was Yang, celebrating his place in history as the first Asian winner of a major while the half-Asian-but-marketed-as-just-black Woods looked on dejectedly. Like him or not, there's something unwholesome there. Something decidedly un-"post-racial."
In any case, Tiger lost the Wanamaker, and that lovely fact deserves to be celebrated. Sure, he'll end his season with another Player of the Year award, another FedEx Cup championship, and another billion in sponsorship coin, but I'll console myself with the one fact that almost makes me like him. The majors squandered, he doesn't care about any of those things.
-GM
Monday, August 17, 2009
Friday, August 14, 2009
A Dead Dog, A Dying Planet
JW,
Now that Michael Vick has stymied both our predictions by signing in Philadelphia (Eagles fans: "The dogs had it coming to them"), let's take a moment to reflect on crime and punishment in America. Like many people, I've been shocked by the level of outrage surrounding Vick's misdeeds. Since his departure from Leavenworth, NFL teams have fallen all over themselves issuing statements of disinterest. Coming to terms with Vick, ESPN reported last night, the Eagles felt the need to secure the permission of both local animal rights activists (!) and the Philadelphia mayor (!!). Yes, Vick behaved very badly, but given some of the reaction to his conviction, release, and reinstatement, you would think he had killed an actual person.
In fact, recent history suggests that he would have fared better if he had. While several NFL players and recent retirees have at least tried to kill a guy, perhaps the best counterpoint to Vick is Donte Stallworth, whose DUI Manslaughter plea and one-year suspension from the league will almost certainly be followed by an open-armed return in 2010. If he's good enough, Stallworth will play again, and no one will think a thing about it. People, the NFL and the justice system inform us, are worth significantly less than dogs.
One of the problems, of course, is that humans don't have the powerful lobby that animals enjoy. What we've got, in fact, are a number of organizations lobbying against us: NARAL Pro-Choice, Planned Parenthood, and the Democratic Party. And, of course, the New York Times, which earlier this week released a headline I've been anticipating for years: "Having Children Brings High Carbon Impact." While the story itself reads like a parody of left-wing secularism, it's the reader comments that truly quicken the soul:
Susan: "Instead of offering incentives to have more children, we should offer incentives to NOT have more children."
Kinnakeet: "Once again, people intelligent and literate enough to grasp the importance of [global warming] limit their reproduction."
Akira: "I get so tired of seeing children in Africa, or even in my own Queens nabe (sic), who are born into already less-than-favorable situations, when this all could have been avoided with a simple condom."
Goodness! Given these comments, it's no wonder that Vick is reviled while Stallworth is immediately forgiven. After all, Stallworth helped control the population. Bro is green! I've said it for years: The ultimate liberal fantasy is the suicide of the human race followed by the return of earth to the animals. Seriously, check out the History Channel program Life After People. It's left-wing porn.
-GM
GM,
I was wondering when you were going to bring up that Times piece, but I had no idea you'd manage to tie it in with Michael Vick. I'm not particularly troubled by either ruling, Vick's or Stallworth's. Vick ran an illegal ring for years that, through his own recklessness (I won't say "malice"), resulted in the suffering of many animals. Stallworth made one mistake that had a horrible consequence, but I'm sure he gave the victim's family a handsome sum of money, plus there's the whole issue of his infraction occurring in Florida, which seems to be much more criminal-friendly than Georgia or Virginia.
The moral of the story in the Times is the most ironic I've seen in a while. The environmentalist position was always more forgivable than other left-wing institutions such as diet socialism, abortion made easy, and "equal opportunity" employment. After all, "Leave a healthy planet to the next generation" is a pretty good message--one I can't argue with. But now, "Leave a healthy planet to the next generation by reducing the size of the next generation" just isn't quite as catchy.
I can just imagine the liberal convention where they brainstormed this concept. Bono, the Dixie Chicks, Keith Olbermann, Jon Stewart, Al Gore, and New York Times editor Bill Keller engage in a round-table discussion. Gore: All right, folks, we seem to be winning these days. Let's bring in our anti-religion consultant, who has a fabulous idea.
Enter Bill Maher
Maher: Thank you, everyone. You know what I can't stand? Responsible, diligent, devout Catholics who have multiple children with similar values and send them to great private schools so that they can also be successful. I'm not crazy about welfare babies either, but at least their conception is strategical and not religiously motivated. How can we convince educated people to stop having children even if they can afford to?
And so it began. I'm sure human reproduction does, in some way, increase the species' carbon footprint, but damn... isn't the preservation of mankind something we can all agree on?!
-JW
Now that Michael Vick has stymied both our predictions by signing in Philadelphia (Eagles fans: "The dogs had it coming to them"), let's take a moment to reflect on crime and punishment in America. Like many people, I've been shocked by the level of outrage surrounding Vick's misdeeds. Since his departure from Leavenworth, NFL teams have fallen all over themselves issuing statements of disinterest. Coming to terms with Vick, ESPN reported last night, the Eagles felt the need to secure the permission of both local animal rights activists (!) and the Philadelphia mayor (!!). Yes, Vick behaved very badly, but given some of the reaction to his conviction, release, and reinstatement, you would think he had killed an actual person.
In fact, recent history suggests that he would have fared better if he had. While several NFL players and recent retirees have at least tried to kill a guy, perhaps the best counterpoint to Vick is Donte Stallworth, whose DUI Manslaughter plea and one-year suspension from the league will almost certainly be followed by an open-armed return in 2010. If he's good enough, Stallworth will play again, and no one will think a thing about it. People, the NFL and the justice system inform us, are worth significantly less than dogs.
One of the problems, of course, is that humans don't have the powerful lobby that animals enjoy. What we've got, in fact, are a number of organizations lobbying against us: NARAL Pro-Choice, Planned Parenthood, and the Democratic Party. And, of course, the New York Times, which earlier this week released a headline I've been anticipating for years: "Having Children Brings High Carbon Impact." While the story itself reads like a parody of left-wing secularism, it's the reader comments that truly quicken the soul:
Susan: "Instead of offering incentives to have more children, we should offer incentives to NOT have more children."
Kinnakeet: "Once again, people intelligent and literate enough to grasp the importance of [global warming] limit their reproduction."
Akira: "I get so tired of seeing children in Africa, or even in my own Queens nabe (sic), who are born into already less-than-favorable situations, when this all could have been avoided with a simple condom."
Goodness! Given these comments, it's no wonder that Vick is reviled while Stallworth is immediately forgiven. After all, Stallworth helped control the population. Bro is green! I've said it for years: The ultimate liberal fantasy is the suicide of the human race followed by the return of earth to the animals. Seriously, check out the History Channel program Life After People. It's left-wing porn.
-GM
GM,
I was wondering when you were going to bring up that Times piece, but I had no idea you'd manage to tie it in with Michael Vick. I'm not particularly troubled by either ruling, Vick's or Stallworth's. Vick ran an illegal ring for years that, through his own recklessness (I won't say "malice"), resulted in the suffering of many animals. Stallworth made one mistake that had a horrible consequence, but I'm sure he gave the victim's family a handsome sum of money, plus there's the whole issue of his infraction occurring in Florida, which seems to be much more criminal-friendly than Georgia or Virginia.
The moral of the story in the Times is the most ironic I've seen in a while. The environmentalist position was always more forgivable than other left-wing institutions such as diet socialism, abortion made easy, and "equal opportunity" employment. After all, "Leave a healthy planet to the next generation" is a pretty good message--one I can't argue with. But now, "Leave a healthy planet to the next generation by reducing the size of the next generation" just isn't quite as catchy.
I can just imagine the liberal convention where they brainstormed this concept. Bono, the Dixie Chicks, Keith Olbermann, Jon Stewart, Al Gore, and New York Times editor Bill Keller engage in a round-table discussion. Gore: All right, folks, we seem to be winning these days. Let's bring in our anti-religion consultant, who has a fabulous idea.
Enter Bill Maher
Maher: Thank you, everyone. You know what I can't stand? Responsible, diligent, devout Catholics who have multiple children with similar values and send them to great private schools so that they can also be successful. I'm not crazy about welfare babies either, but at least their conception is strategical and not religiously motivated. How can we convince educated people to stop having children even if they can afford to?
And so it began. I'm sure human reproduction does, in some way, increase the species' carbon footprint, but damn... isn't the preservation of mankind something we can all agree on?!
-JW
Thursday, August 13, 2009
The PGA (Please Get Appealing!) Championship
GM,
As I was walking into work this morning, I passed a gentleman, Joe, who rents some office space from my boss. We generally exchange pleasantries every morning, but this morning--perhaps because my boss is out of town--he asked me how I was enjoying the job. "Well, it's not really what I was looking for," I answered, "but I think I've accomplished enough to impress somebody else one day." He responded to me with the typical "You're gonna be fine," adding that I was a "self-starter." Allow me to reiterate that he doesn't know me too well. But the term "self-starter"--which I think may have won the 2008 Business Cliche of the Year award--served to remind me that the PGA Championship began today. Thanks, Joe.
As I usually do before a golf major, I got to thinking about what I wanted to see this weekend. Do I want to see Tiger and Phil in contention on Sunday? How about an unknown take a three-round lead but with several established, better players nipping at his heals? What about a Sergio Garcia choke job? Do I want John Daly's game and wardrobe to be embarrassing? Would it be fun if we had a streaker? To these, I answer, "Yes, yes, yes, YES, and HELL YES!" Let's face it: Golf is inherently boring, and if it weren't for the fact that these guys look a lot like we do and seem to have real human emotions despite their cushy lives, we would lose interest in a hurry. This is coming from a guy who either wakes up or stays up to watch the British Open's early rounds! The amount of analysis that has surrounded Tiger's fist pumps would be unimaginable in any other sport. In fact, the Tiger fist pump and the Phil head-nod-with-smile-accompaniment have become the gold and silver standards of giving the fans what they want! The Padraig fist pump, as displayed at last year's PGA Championship, is neither. After that maneuver, he only could have redeemed himself by breaking into a river dance from his native land.
Four majors in a year is the perfect number. Any fewer, I wouldn't get my fill. Any more, we'd start to catch on that the so-called stories that shape every event are just worn-out plots from events past. I'm still a huge sucker for it, though.
-JW
JW,
Like you, I really like the majors set-up in professional golf, possibly the fan-friendliest of all sports structures. Everyone agrees to care about these four events and only these four; all the players try their hardest; and the television networks air even the early rounds. Personally, I've added the Players' Championship and the FedEx Cup events to my diet, but I fully support the golf fan who watches only the big four.
What I can't abide, however, is the guy who's a fan not of golf but of Tiger Woods. You know the type: He tunes in on Sunday just long enough to check the leaderboard. If it's Tiger-free, he's out of there faster than Steve Williams can assault a fan. The attraction to Woods is easily explained, of course. Like Barack Obama, Tiger is the perfect specimen for 21st century America: He wins a lot, he makes his opponents look like buffoons, and he's not white. Sure, he's a petulant, joyless crybaby, but he's the greatest golfer ever! We get to tell our grandchildren that we [slept through] him in his prime!
All that said, he's clearly going to win this championship, and I don't see it being particularly close. As I write this, he's a stroke ahead of the field and on the fairway at his eighteenth. Furthermore, he's playing at Hazeltine, a terrible major course whose obsessive, ridiculous length (7,674 yards) has the dual effect of eliminating all but about ten guys from the field and not challenging Tiger at all. I put him at 15-under for the championship--a winner by six strokes.
Of course, the argument can be made that Tiger's the only thing keeping golf in business. Ratings are terrible when he's not playing, and in many ways he really is bigger than the game. Given golf's other obstacles--Hugo Chavez recently denounced it as "a bourgeois sport"; Barack Obama can't be far behind--perhaps we should be grateful that someone's keeping the Lucas Glovers of the world from ruining more than one major per season. I just wish it were someone a little more likable, a little less of a jerk. Let's be honest. I wish it were Colin Montgomerie.
-GM
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
The Preseason of Our Discontent
JW,
With Summer 2009 stretching into its eighth month, the sports world has grown desperate. Tennis and golf are sporadic at best, basketball's in hibernation, and baseball couldn't matter less if the games were played by nine-year-old girls. As you can imagine, ESPN's attempts to fill up its programming schedule have not fared well. Baseball Tonight spent forty-five seconds describing Lou Piniella's nose hairs last week, and I caught a 2006 World Series of Poker episode on Classic the other night . . . and it wasn't the main event! Let's face it: If it weren't for the PGA Championship this weekend, I'd be seriously considering doing myself harm.
You can imagine my pleasure, then, when I flipped through my guide on Sunday and came across the Hall of Fame Game, the first sign that football season is upon us and we can finally stop talking about politics. The Titans were decked out in their old Houston Oilers jerseys. The Bills were wearing giant Canadian flags. Whistles were blowing, fans were cheering, and a grand time was had by all.
Until the second quarter, that is.
Look, it's a familiar problem that the NFL in August is nothing but a tease. We get fifteen minutes of the real guys followed by forty-five minutes with scrubs who aren't worthy to serve on Vince Young suicide watch. We get more shots of the sidelines than the field. Come to think of it, watching preseason football is a bit like getting a boyfriend in prison. You're scratching an itch, yes, but you don't feel good about it.
So what can be done to fix these endless months of summer? Seriously, what? Other than turning off the television, I'm drawing a blank.
-GM
GM,
The only reason those guys aren't worthy to serve on Vince Young suicide watch is because they're all a threat to pass him on the depth chart, and that would just be counterproductive. Is it possible that Young's comment about making the Hall of Fame sprung from some sort of confusion about playing in the HOF Game? I was actually waiting for an "I told you so" after the game. Enough with the silliness; I'll do my best to answer your question about how to fill the time--not necessarily productively. Here are my suggestions in reverse order of when I actually tried them out:
2009: Gamble a lot. I just deposited enough money into a poker site that I'll have to play three million hands to earn my 100-percent deposit bonus. I'll also be keeping an eye out for intriguing futures bets, like over-under win totals (my specialty).
2006-2009: Follow the Brett Favre retirement decision, particularly by watching ESPN2's First Take, which makes for amazing television if you're familiar enough with TV to laugh when it's horrible.
2008: Set a physical goal and stick to it. I ran almost every day last July, curiously drawing a multitude of honks from black men.
2007: Work in minor league baseball. You will want to kill yourself by May, but you won't notice the difference in the dead months.
2004: Apply hours upon hours to fantasy football research. That year, I actually researched my stats and formulated player rankings weeks before Yahoo! released its! I probably spent 70 hours (mostly at work) preparing for our draft. Result: taking Kevin Barlow with my second pick and being eliminated from playoff contention by Week 9.
1995: Take a vacation. This is the last summer vacation I recall taking in my life. Years of extreme poverty (at least for someone born to the American upper-middle class) has made the idea of vacationing unrealistic. Even back then, I wouldn't recommend doing what I did, though, which was taking the trip with my family.
-JW
With Summer 2009 stretching into its eighth month, the sports world has grown desperate. Tennis and golf are sporadic at best, basketball's in hibernation, and baseball couldn't matter less if the games were played by nine-year-old girls. As you can imagine, ESPN's attempts to fill up its programming schedule have not fared well. Baseball Tonight spent forty-five seconds describing Lou Piniella's nose hairs last week, and I caught a 2006 World Series of Poker episode on Classic the other night . . . and it wasn't the main event! Let's face it: If it weren't for the PGA Championship this weekend, I'd be seriously considering doing myself harm.
You can imagine my pleasure, then, when I flipped through my guide on Sunday and came across the Hall of Fame Game, the first sign that football season is upon us and we can finally stop talking about politics. The Titans were decked out in their old Houston Oilers jerseys. The Bills were wearing giant Canadian flags. Whistles were blowing, fans were cheering, and a grand time was had by all.
Until the second quarter, that is.
Look, it's a familiar problem that the NFL in August is nothing but a tease. We get fifteen minutes of the real guys followed by forty-five minutes with scrubs who aren't worthy to serve on Vince Young suicide watch. We get more shots of the sidelines than the field. Come to think of it, watching preseason football is a bit like getting a boyfriend in prison. You're scratching an itch, yes, but you don't feel good about it.
So what can be done to fix these endless months of summer? Seriously, what? Other than turning off the television, I'm drawing a blank.
-GM
GM,
The only reason those guys aren't worthy to serve on Vince Young suicide watch is because they're all a threat to pass him on the depth chart, and that would just be counterproductive. Is it possible that Young's comment about making the Hall of Fame sprung from some sort of confusion about playing in the HOF Game? I was actually waiting for an "I told you so" after the game. Enough with the silliness; I'll do my best to answer your question about how to fill the time--not necessarily productively. Here are my suggestions in reverse order of when I actually tried them out:
2009: Gamble a lot. I just deposited enough money into a poker site that I'll have to play three million hands to earn my 100-percent deposit bonus. I'll also be keeping an eye out for intriguing futures bets, like over-under win totals (my specialty).
2006-2009: Follow the Brett Favre retirement decision, particularly by watching ESPN2's First Take, which makes for amazing television if you're familiar enough with TV to laugh when it's horrible.
2008: Set a physical goal and stick to it. I ran almost every day last July, curiously drawing a multitude of honks from black men.
2007: Work in minor league baseball. You will want to kill yourself by May, but you won't notice the difference in the dead months.
2004: Apply hours upon hours to fantasy football research. That year, I actually researched my stats and formulated player rankings weeks before Yahoo! released its! I probably spent 70 hours (mostly at work) preparing for our draft. Result: taking Kevin Barlow with my second pick and being eliminated from playoff contention by Week 9.
1995: Take a vacation. This is the last summer vacation I recall taking in my life. Years of extreme poverty (at least for someone born to the American upper-middle class) has made the idea of vacationing unrealistic. Even back then, I wouldn't recommend doing what I did, though, which was taking the trip with my family.
-JW
Monday, August 10, 2009
A Conflict of "Interests"
JW,
As you know, there are two types of voters in this country. The first is grounded in a defined political philosophy and votes according to how closely a particular candidate matches it. The second type, a stupider segment of the population, is carried on the wind, led to the polls by media-driven caricatures and slogans. These are the people for whom political advertising is constructed and for whose sake political narratives ("First Black President!") are finely tuned.
Sadly, it's this second group that decides most elections. Vaguely convinced of one thing or another, these voters are little more than the sum of their television watching. Infinitely credulous, they're infinitely malleable, and it's because of them that media bias is not just a curiosity but a legitimate political concern.
Enter the Associated Press, which over the weekend submitted a doozie so bold-faced, I almost wonder if it's a misprint. Recent cooperation between drugmakers and the White House, the AP writes, is "a somewhat surprising political alliance, given the drug industry's recent history of siding with Republicans and the Democrats' disdain for special interests."
Really? Don't make me laugh.
I mean, seriously. Democrats dislike special interests about as much as Wilt Chamberlain dislikes p---y. About as much as Bill Clinton dislikes Lane Bryant models. Yet the Associated Press seems never to have heard of such Democrat-friendly special interest groups as trial lawyers, the teachers' unions, or the UAW. They've never heard of the United Mine Workers or the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. Hell, they've never heard of black people!
After all, what's a special interest but a minority group that votes as one? Come to think of it, what isn't a special interest? Pharmaceutical companies have long been recognized (and belittled) as such, but what about the AFL-CIO, a body whose entire membership is only 11 million, less than 4 percent of the population. Certainly their political contributions and prowess are as significant as PhRMA's. At what population threshold do you leave your specialness behind?
Regardless, the problem is not in the definition of terms but in their demonization. Even as we speak, some fool has wandered onto MSN.com and is now internalizing the completely fraudulent claim that Democrats [good] dislike special interests [bad]. Will he stop to consider what any of those words mean? I don't know about you, but I seriously doubt it.
-GM
GM,
Yes, Wilt "The Stilt" sure did like to "party," although rumor has it that the number he attended was greatly exaggerated. I actually collected paychecks from the Associated Press at one point in my life. Fortunately, as a sports stringer, I didn't really get a political sense one way or the other. Naturally, though, we may assume that America's leading wire service, the source from which all those liberal media outlets get their "information," is at least a tad left of center. "Information" gets quotation marks because it is factual by definition. But tack on a convenient little phrase like "given . . . the democrats' disdain for special interests" to the end of a factual sentence--which, by the way, is not part of a commentary piece--and you have people, well, accepting it as a given. Does the article go on to justify such an intriguing generalization with examples as strict journalism suggests? Not at all; the "take our word for it" approach is much easier.
I'm not saying that the unnamed author of the story had any intention to manipulate the "stupider segment of the population," as you so callously called them. He may have a liberal bias that he can't completely shake when writing a story, meaning he never thought that there could be an argument against his claim. He may even be conservative or moderate and have just messed up. I'm even willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. However, the mere fact that we can legitimately speculate that he may have had an agenda is a shame unto itself.
Take it from a former journalist; there's an old saying in news: "We don't tell people what to think, just what to think about." As I said, it's an old saying. We now know that some prominent members of the American media want us not just to view certain issues, but to view certain issues in certain ways. I have a few favorite things in life: friends, sports, ice cream, and the First Ammendment. The first three are in good hands, but the people with whom we've left the most responsibility for the fourth aren't all fulfilling their duties. I'm not talking about Jon Stewart; I'm talking about writers and reporters who make an effort to appear as moderate as possible while subtly making one side look more appealing.
I once heard this statistic at the end of an otherwise well-balanced national news piece on the Boy Scouts/public funding issue: "Studies show that molestation of young males is three times more likely to be committed by a man who purports to be straight."
What they wanted you to believe: Straight men are three times more likely to molest young boys. (Provably, through mathematics, this is false.)
What this actually shows if you think about it: Gay men, who make up 10 percent of the male population at most, are committing 25 percent of the molestations of young boys! (Provably, through mathematics, this is true.)
NOTE: This entry is not intended to be anti-homosexual, as I have no political opinion about sexual orientation, nor should any employer or university, which is why the idea of making a protected class out of bedroom habits is quite non-progressive in actuality. Another topic for another day, I suppose.
-JW
As you know, there are two types of voters in this country. The first is grounded in a defined political philosophy and votes according to how closely a particular candidate matches it. The second type, a stupider segment of the population, is carried on the wind, led to the polls by media-driven caricatures and slogans. These are the people for whom political advertising is constructed and for whose sake political narratives ("First Black President!") are finely tuned.
Sadly, it's this second group that decides most elections. Vaguely convinced of one thing or another, these voters are little more than the sum of their television watching. Infinitely credulous, they're infinitely malleable, and it's because of them that media bias is not just a curiosity but a legitimate political concern.
Enter the Associated Press, which over the weekend submitted a doozie so bold-faced, I almost wonder if it's a misprint. Recent cooperation between drugmakers and the White House, the AP writes, is "a somewhat surprising political alliance, given the drug industry's recent history of siding with Republicans and the Democrats' disdain for special interests."
Really? Don't make me laugh.
I mean, seriously. Democrats dislike special interests about as much as Wilt Chamberlain dislikes p---y. About as much as Bill Clinton dislikes Lane Bryant models. Yet the Associated Press seems never to have heard of such Democrat-friendly special interest groups as trial lawyers, the teachers' unions, or the UAW. They've never heard of the United Mine Workers or the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. Hell, they've never heard of black people!
After all, what's a special interest but a minority group that votes as one? Come to think of it, what isn't a special interest? Pharmaceutical companies have long been recognized (and belittled) as such, but what about the AFL-CIO, a body whose entire membership is only 11 million, less than 4 percent of the population. Certainly their political contributions and prowess are as significant as PhRMA's. At what population threshold do you leave your specialness behind?
Regardless, the problem is not in the definition of terms but in their demonization. Even as we speak, some fool has wandered onto MSN.com and is now internalizing the completely fraudulent claim that Democrats [good] dislike special interests [bad]. Will he stop to consider what any of those words mean? I don't know about you, but I seriously doubt it.
-GM
GM,
Yes, Wilt "The Stilt" sure did like to "party," although rumor has it that the number he attended was greatly exaggerated. I actually collected paychecks from the Associated Press at one point in my life. Fortunately, as a sports stringer, I didn't really get a political sense one way or the other. Naturally, though, we may assume that America's leading wire service, the source from which all those liberal media outlets get their "information," is at least a tad left of center. "Information" gets quotation marks because it is factual by definition. But tack on a convenient little phrase like "given . . . the democrats' disdain for special interests" to the end of a factual sentence--which, by the way, is not part of a commentary piece--and you have people, well, accepting it as a given. Does the article go on to justify such an intriguing generalization with examples as strict journalism suggests? Not at all; the "take our word for it" approach is much easier.
I'm not saying that the unnamed author of the story had any intention to manipulate the "stupider segment of the population," as you so callously called them. He may have a liberal bias that he can't completely shake when writing a story, meaning he never thought that there could be an argument against his claim. He may even be conservative or moderate and have just messed up. I'm even willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. However, the mere fact that we can legitimately speculate that he may have had an agenda is a shame unto itself.
Take it from a former journalist; there's an old saying in news: "We don't tell people what to think, just what to think about." As I said, it's an old saying. We now know that some prominent members of the American media want us not just to view certain issues, but to view certain issues in certain ways. I have a few favorite things in life: friends, sports, ice cream, and the First Ammendment. The first three are in good hands, but the people with whom we've left the most responsibility for the fourth aren't all fulfilling their duties. I'm not talking about Jon Stewart; I'm talking about writers and reporters who make an effort to appear as moderate as possible while subtly making one side look more appealing.
I once heard this statistic at the end of an otherwise well-balanced national news piece on the Boy Scouts/public funding issue: "Studies show that molestation of young males is three times more likely to be committed by a man who purports to be straight."
What they wanted you to believe: Straight men are three times more likely to molest young boys. (Provably, through mathematics, this is false.)
What this actually shows if you think about it: Gay men, who make up 10 percent of the male population at most, are committing 25 percent of the molestations of young boys! (Provably, through mathematics, this is true.)
NOTE: This entry is not intended to be anti-homosexual, as I have no political opinion about sexual orientation, nor should any employer or university, which is why the idea of making a protected class out of bedroom habits is quite non-progressive in actuality. Another topic for another day, I suppose.
-JW
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
