GM,
ESPN reported yesterday that Plaxico Burress was sentenced to two years in prison for shooting himself in the leg. Was that part of the plea bargain?! "Plax, they've just got too much on us. We can go to court, and you will be found guilty of carrying an unlicensed concealed weapon. You could, however, shave off a few years in jail by admitting that your idiocy, not your criminality, has brought on this punishment." I thought two years was too much for packing heat without a license, but apparently New York won't even let you shoot yourself!
Enough dwelling on poorly worded reporting. Two hammers were dropped yesterday, and neither served justice. Plaxico, like every other NFL thug who can't wait to hang out in bars where people want to exploit him or extort from him, took a firearm into a bar. In his case, however, he must have thought his Florida permit was universally accepted (or was just too careless to apply in New York), and he happened to shoot himself. Wouldn't a prolonged period of probation accompanied by a forced forfeiture of all weapons be more appropriate? Legal cases often have rulings that clearly aren't fair. Sure, they may fit in with rules and precedents, but anyone with common sense recognizes a shockingly unfair decision. Plax was certainly irresponsible, but it's a shame that a guy who probably wasn't any threat to society will have to spend two of his playing years in prison.
As for the NCAA's rulling on the University of Memphis basketball program, they failed to catch the two biggest criminals. Derrick Rose, who was living in Chicago, let some kid in Detroit (!) take the SAT for him. Based on his past, we can assume John Calipari's level of involvement ranges from having prior knowledge to actually filling in the bubbles in the test booklet. Both of these guys are doing extremely well financially, and one is still in the NCAA! I can understand having no authority to punish Rose, but how is it possible that the NCAA continues to allow coaches to benefit from their infractions simply because they were able to whore themselves out in time? Memphis has to give back a lot of money; the culprits continue to rake it in. I know two guys who the Tiger athletic department should instantly hit up for donations.
-JW
JW,
If nothing else, recent history shows us that justice in this country is a matter of extremes. Sure, fame can buy an acquittal, but it leads just as easily to example-making, certainly the most feared of all celebrity side-effects.
Such was the case yesterday, when Plaxico Burress pleaded guilty to a weapons charge that a fifty-year-old white guy would have laughed at. While I'm not particularly sad to see Plax behind bars, there's something disturbing about a justice system in which punishment is allotted based on factors so far removed from the crime itself. Consider Michael Vick, whose prison time would almost certainly have been shortened had his fame not engendered a political firestorm. Or Donte Stallworth, who essentially bought himself a 30-day sentence for killing a guy--paying the family to approve his plea bargain.
Part of the problem, I know, is that while Stallworth looks like a normal person, Plaxico Burress and Michael Vick look crazy-eyed and malevolent. In punishing them, we're throwing in all the s--t we know they've gotten away with. Perhaps just as problematic, though, is the wide latitude of prosecutors, whose political ambitions are generally no secret. In the case of Plax, Manhattan district attorney Robert Morgenthau's public promise of jail time is merely the political equivalent of the shivving that Burress can expect next week at Riker's Island--just a guy trying to buy some cred.
Meanwhile, the NCAA's search for perfect justice remains similarly flawed. You make an interesting case about Rose and Calipari, but I'll argue, as I have before, that, money aside, Memphis is receiving no punishment. Yes, the national media will have their (at least partly racially-motivated) field day at the Tigers' expense, but recruiting will go on and the fans' memories will remain largely unscathed. We won those games, and everybody knows it.
A final note: Striking the record books is not just stupid but counterproductive. I've heard Memphis' expunged 1985 Final Four appearance mentioned dozens of times over the past month or so; I've heard about St. John's legitimate appearance exactly zero times. And I don't expect that ratio to change.
-GM
Friday, August 21, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
A "Whole" Betrayal
JW,
In the hallowed halls of The Wall Street Journal, an unlikely hero has emerged. If you do nothing else today--and let's face it, there's a good chance you won't--do yourself a favor and read John Mackey's take on "health" "care" "reform." And yes, all three words now require their own sarcastic quotation marks.
In case you're wondering, John Mackey is the co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods, and here's where the unlikeliness of his conservatism comes in. Whole Foods, as you know, is beloved by liberals (it's #48 at Stuff White People Like) and is one of the very few national chains where the hipster set feels good about giving its green tithe. Frankly, I'm not sure what Mackey's thinking by publicly opposing Obama on an issue so dear to his customers. Either he's trying to expand his business to you and me ("Wink and nod, everyone--I'm trying to persuade Republicans to shop here.") or he has woefully understimated the humorlessness of his existing base. Like moths to a flame, like pedophiles to the Little League World Series, liberals will sniff out political betrayal, and they will put your Margaret Thatcher-quoting ass out of business.
Especially when, as Mackey's is, your departure from socialist orthodoxy is so thoroughly smart. In addition to the aforementioned Thatcher citation ("The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."), Mackey lands solid punches against the Obama plan's financial excesses, its inevitable use of rationing, and its promise to make us less free. Most importantly, he hits upon the philosophical point ungirding the right wing's opposition to "reform":
Health care isn't a right. It can't be.
As Bill Whittle wrote last year in The National Review, a right is that which cannot be taken away from us by the government, not that which must be given to us. After all, Whittle writes, "There’s a word for someone who has their food, housing and care provided for them… for people who owe their existence to someone else. That word is slave."
Yet here's the Democratic Party, chasing the permanent, Karl Rove-style majority that they reviled when Republicans were in charge. Give enough loot to enough people, they realize, and they'll forget how to provide for themselves. They'll be dependant on you for everything. And then you've got them. A less cautious man would point to the generational trap of public housing as evidence, or the fact that FEMA trailers are still housing New Orleans refugees. I'll simply close by inviting our readers to drive through those areas of town that receive greatest government assistance. See how the experiment's working.
A word of advice before you go. Lock your doors.
-GM
GM,
OhhhHHHHhhh! So Whole Foods wasn't founded as another avenue for liberal snobbishness; that was just an inevitable side effect. They just want us to pay a little more to lead healthier lives. You're not kidding when you use the word "hero," either. Mackey's article boldy advocates self discipline, personal accountability, and a unanimous acceptance of the Constitution and Declaration--three concepts liberals despise. Strategically, you'd have to question his open stance, which could lead to a serious stock-price plunge if the boycotting libs advance their efforts to a short-selling conspiracy. That would take a significant increase in general market awareness in such circles, but only one of them has to figure it out before the rest get in line. If I were Mackey, I'd be scared.
A girl I dated once took me to a local organic-food store to buy us something to make for lunch. The idea of (her) spending $24 for one grocery-store meal displeased me in principle, but if I ever feel like doing it myself, I'm definitely going to Whole Foods. If you read the article, you can tell that Mackey isn't just sort of conservative on the issue; he captures and embraces every aspect of the right (right) point of view. I read it once for information and a second time for pleasure!
It may seem like we've reached a point at which we can collectively afford to take care of everyone. That's because we have. And I even believe it is a moral failure if a person dies because he cannot afford a certain procedure, but who has failed? Certainly not the government! After all, what would they be guilty of, giving us one more freedom?!
The whole idea of freedom not being free is wrong. If you believe in fundamental American ideals, you have to believe that freedom is inherently free. There is, however, a cost to defending it. We have to take measures like funding a strong military and voting Republican no matter how incapable of public speaking and independent thought our candidates may be. NOTE TO GOP: If you select your nominations wisely, you might have a shot at returning to the White House. If you don't, we'll soon be deciding between a Democrat who's secretly socialist and a Socialist who's secretly the Antichrist.
-JW
In the hallowed halls of The Wall Street Journal, an unlikely hero has emerged. If you do nothing else today--and let's face it, there's a good chance you won't--do yourself a favor and read John Mackey's take on "health" "care" "reform." And yes, all three words now require their own sarcastic quotation marks.
In case you're wondering, John Mackey is the co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods, and here's where the unlikeliness of his conservatism comes in. Whole Foods, as you know, is beloved by liberals (it's #48 at Stuff White People Like) and is one of the very few national chains where the hipster set feels good about giving its green tithe. Frankly, I'm not sure what Mackey's thinking by publicly opposing Obama on an issue so dear to his customers. Either he's trying to expand his business to you and me ("Wink and nod, everyone--I'm trying to persuade Republicans to shop here.") or he has woefully understimated the humorlessness of his existing base. Like moths to a flame, like pedophiles to the Little League World Series, liberals will sniff out political betrayal, and they will put your Margaret Thatcher-quoting ass out of business.
Especially when, as Mackey's is, your departure from socialist orthodoxy is so thoroughly smart. In addition to the aforementioned Thatcher citation ("The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."), Mackey lands solid punches against the Obama plan's financial excesses, its inevitable use of rationing, and its promise to make us less free. Most importantly, he hits upon the philosophical point ungirding the right wing's opposition to "reform":
Health care isn't a right. It can't be.
As Bill Whittle wrote last year in The National Review, a right is that which cannot be taken away from us by the government, not that which must be given to us. After all, Whittle writes, "There’s a word for someone who has their food, housing and care provided for them… for people who owe their existence to someone else. That word is slave."
Yet here's the Democratic Party, chasing the permanent, Karl Rove-style majority that they reviled when Republicans were in charge. Give enough loot to enough people, they realize, and they'll forget how to provide for themselves. They'll be dependant on you for everything. And then you've got them. A less cautious man would point to the generational trap of public housing as evidence, or the fact that FEMA trailers are still housing New Orleans refugees. I'll simply close by inviting our readers to drive through those areas of town that receive greatest government assistance. See how the experiment's working.
A word of advice before you go. Lock your doors.
-GM
GM,
OhhhHHHHhhh! So Whole Foods wasn't founded as another avenue for liberal snobbishness; that was just an inevitable side effect. They just want us to pay a little more to lead healthier lives. You're not kidding when you use the word "hero," either. Mackey's article boldy advocates self discipline, personal accountability, and a unanimous acceptance of the Constitution and Declaration--three concepts liberals despise. Strategically, you'd have to question his open stance, which could lead to a serious stock-price plunge if the boycotting libs advance their efforts to a short-selling conspiracy. That would take a significant increase in general market awareness in such circles, but only one of them has to figure it out before the rest get in line. If I were Mackey, I'd be scared.
A girl I dated once took me to a local organic-food store to buy us something to make for lunch. The idea of (her) spending $24 for one grocery-store meal displeased me in principle, but if I ever feel like doing it myself, I'm definitely going to Whole Foods. If you read the article, you can tell that Mackey isn't just sort of conservative on the issue; he captures and embraces every aspect of the right (right) point of view. I read it once for information and a second time for pleasure!
It may seem like we've reached a point at which we can collectively afford to take care of everyone. That's because we have. And I even believe it is a moral failure if a person dies because he cannot afford a certain procedure, but who has failed? Certainly not the government! After all, what would they be guilty of, giving us one more freedom?!
The whole idea of freedom not being free is wrong. If you believe in fundamental American ideals, you have to believe that freedom is inherently free. There is, however, a cost to defending it. We have to take measures like funding a strong military and voting Republican no matter how incapable of public speaking and independent thought our candidates may be. NOTE TO GOP: If you select your nominations wisely, you might have a shot at returning to the White House. If you don't, we'll soon be deciding between a Democrat who's secretly socialist and a Socialist who's secretly the Antichrist.
-JW
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Favre Signs! Sage Rosenfels Found Dead.
JW,
Like Facebook (whose use, new research indicates, leads to increased time on Facebook), the Brett Favre saga has so far outpaced the will of its creators that it literally cannot be stopped. Once an intriguing plot to carry us through the summer, Favre's retirement decision has devolved into a vicious circle (jerk) of competing rumors and speculation, a media fantasia in the key of who gives a s--t. There was a time when Favre's career would have made a great movie due to his humble origins, human struggles, and on-field triumphs. Now? It's the built-in sequels.
As you will have heard if you own a television, unnamed Vikings (the best kind) have conveyed their certainty that Favre will play the 2009 season despite previous reports to the contrary. Though I couldn't be less curious about the whole affair, a part of me is tempted to take notes on how to be rewarded for laziness. After all, Favre clearly spent the offseason figuring out how to trade his legacy and reputation for weekdays off. Now that the Vikings have allegedly come through with the right contract (codename: "Sundays Only"), well, let's just say that slackers and ne'er-do-wells worldwide have a lot to live up to.
Mind you, I'm not blaming Favre for wanting to skip camp (where photogenic faces go to be broken). My beef is with the NFL and the Clemens-esque, rent-a-win mentality at work here.
Think about it. Favre's too old to be built upon. Regardless of his promises, he's not in anybody's long-term plans. Thus, even the best case scenario--another ring for the gunslinger turned hired gun--is nothing but a one-year abberation. A pause button for the real Vikings, and one that may well end the careers of Sage Rosenfels, Tarvaris Jackson, and the inevitably underachieving 2010 coaching staff.
There's a chance, of course, that all the latest talk is nothing--that Favre is knocking back Vicodin shakes poolside, laughing his head off. If so, God bless the man for sticking to his most recent guns. As we know, not everyone has the required fortitude.
-GM
GM,
We clearly have vastly different levels of appreciation for the Favre saga. Almost as logically puzzling as his consecutive-start streak is the fact that he's a joke that gets better with repetition! Now, I don't think we'll have to (rather, get to) go through the whole charade in 2010, but I never imagined we would in 2009 either. I'm sure there will be a few rumors next spring, but this is probably the end of the line, which saddens me.
What I find strange is that the media--or, at least, the medium (ESPN)--lost heart in this matter at some point this offseason. Rachel Nichols spent a few days in Hattiesburg, the TV talk shows discussed it briefly, and a few key people wound up on camera with some vague answers to some non-pressing questions. But where was the effort to hold Favre accountable for saying right after the season that he was absolutely done with football? Why hasn't he taken any criticism for forcing Sage Rosenfels and Tavaris Jackson to worry about the whims of a middle-aged, gray-haired, Wrangler jean-wearing Mississippian? What about all the players, whose trust and confidence he'll demand, who heard a few weeks ago that he was "really" done this time and then psychologically prepared for a season without him? Shouldn't he have to answer for these things?!
It's like ESPN decided for me that I was sick of hearing about Favre, and nothing could be farther from the truth. I thought the trade-off for Favre's fickleness was supposed to be a media barrage so fierce and nosy it would make the paparazzi blush. Instead, an entire chapter of the Hall of Famer's brutal indecisiveness has been abridged, and I want answers--or at least hearsay. It's August, ESPN. I assure you the juice is worth the squeeze.
-JW
Like Facebook (whose use, new research indicates, leads to increased time on Facebook), the Brett Favre saga has so far outpaced the will of its creators that it literally cannot be stopped. Once an intriguing plot to carry us through the summer, Favre's retirement decision has devolved into a vicious circle (jerk) of competing rumors and speculation, a media fantasia in the key of who gives a s--t. There was a time when Favre's career would have made a great movie due to his humble origins, human struggles, and on-field triumphs. Now? It's the built-in sequels.
As you will have heard if you own a television, unnamed Vikings (the best kind) have conveyed their certainty that Favre will play the 2009 season despite previous reports to the contrary. Though I couldn't be less curious about the whole affair, a part of me is tempted to take notes on how to be rewarded for laziness. After all, Favre clearly spent the offseason figuring out how to trade his legacy and reputation for weekdays off. Now that the Vikings have allegedly come through with the right contract (codename: "Sundays Only"), well, let's just say that slackers and ne'er-do-wells worldwide have a lot to live up to.
Mind you, I'm not blaming Favre for wanting to skip camp (where photogenic faces go to be broken). My beef is with the NFL and the Clemens-esque, rent-a-win mentality at work here.
Think about it. Favre's too old to be built upon. Regardless of his promises, he's not in anybody's long-term plans. Thus, even the best case scenario--another ring for the gunslinger turned hired gun--is nothing but a one-year abberation. A pause button for the real Vikings, and one that may well end the careers of Sage Rosenfels, Tarvaris Jackson, and the inevitably underachieving 2010 coaching staff.
There's a chance, of course, that all the latest talk is nothing--that Favre is knocking back Vicodin shakes poolside, laughing his head off. If so, God bless the man for sticking to his most recent guns. As we know, not everyone has the required fortitude.
-GM
GM,
We clearly have vastly different levels of appreciation for the Favre saga. Almost as logically puzzling as his consecutive-start streak is the fact that he's a joke that gets better with repetition! Now, I don't think we'll have to (rather, get to) go through the whole charade in 2010, but I never imagined we would in 2009 either. I'm sure there will be a few rumors next spring, but this is probably the end of the line, which saddens me.
What I find strange is that the media--or, at least, the medium (ESPN)--lost heart in this matter at some point this offseason. Rachel Nichols spent a few days in Hattiesburg, the TV talk shows discussed it briefly, and a few key people wound up on camera with some vague answers to some non-pressing questions. But where was the effort to hold Favre accountable for saying right after the season that he was absolutely done with football? Why hasn't he taken any criticism for forcing Sage Rosenfels and Tavaris Jackson to worry about the whims of a middle-aged, gray-haired, Wrangler jean-wearing Mississippian? What about all the players, whose trust and confidence he'll demand, who heard a few weeks ago that he was "really" done this time and then psychologically prepared for a season without him? Shouldn't he have to answer for these things?!
It's like ESPN decided for me that I was sick of hearing about Favre, and nothing could be farther from the truth. I thought the trade-off for Favre's fickleness was supposed to be a media barrage so fierce and nosy it would make the paparazzi blush. Instead, an entire chapter of the Hall of Famer's brutal indecisiveness has been abridged, and I want answers--or at least hearsay. It's August, ESPN. I assure you the juice is worth the squeeze.
-JW
Monday, August 17, 2009
Shocking InvASIAN: A Tiger's Tale
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
