GM,
Yesterday, the Patriots' 59-0 blowout of the Titans left few people wondering if New England was for real and if Tennessee was really that bad. It's a resounding "yes" to both. What some may have forgotten, though, is Bill Belichick's far-from-normal-anywhere-outside-of-intramural-football coaching mentality, which leads to passing, calling timeouts, and going for it on fourth down while pummeling a team mercilessly. This was the 2007 Belichick; the 2008 Belichick just didn't have the horses.
Allow our readers to get a glimpse into our lives. You may remember having this phone conversation yesterday at halftime, after Tom Brady had thrown his fifth touchdown pass of the second quarter thanks to Belichick's running a hurry-up offense while up 38-0:
GM: Can you believe Belichick called a timeout to get one more score in?!
JW: Well, honestly, I can understand not kneeling on your opponent's 10-yard line in the first half. That could be more disrespectful. But if Brady comes out in the second half...
GM: Oh, I hope they end his career.
JW: Exactly. And if he throws a pass, I hope they find a way to end Belichick's too.
What ensued, of course, was a Brady-led drive that consisted of three runs and six passes, the last of which hit Moss for his third TD of the day and Brady's sixth. You may take a different stance than I on running up scores, but what about leaving your Hall-of-Fame quarterback in the snow 13 months after he suffered a season-ending injury--in a game that was actually close at the time?
-JW
JW,
It says something about Tennessee's collective psyche that Tom Brady made it out of Gillette Stadium yesterday with working legs and a head still attached to his body. Seriously? There wasn't a third-string safety willing to take one for the team and give Brady the career-ending ass kicking he so richly deserved? There wasn't a bounty on his photogenic head? Sure, the refs nipped any chippiness in the bud by issuing a bulls--t roughing-the-passer penalty on the second half's first play from scrimmage, but I'm not sure they needed to. The Titans are done in every conceivable way, and you have to care before you can take revenge.
Here's some other thoughts, presented in the order in which they occurred to me:
1. We'll hear a lot about Jeff Fisher's job over the next few days, but perhaps it's owner Bud Adams who needs to hand over the reigns. Asked to comment on yesterday's loss, the 86-year-old stated, "The way it is going, I don't know if we'll win any games, and that is unheard of in the National Football League." I think it's safe to say that the Detroit Lions are popping champagne corks and slapping each other on the backs. Meanwhile, Bud's trying to convince his financial people that the stock market can never have an off year.
2. Given the fact that I was still hearing a few "The Titans Really Have To Win This One" stories as late as Sunday morning, I think it's safe to say that we've been overvaluing them as a football community. Folks, let's agree. Unless "have to" means "shouldn't because it will compromise their draft position," the Titans no longer have to win anything.
3. In 2002, the Kansas City Chiefs beat the Arizona Cardinals 49-0 at home, showing flashes of the offensive brilliance that would lead them to a 10-0 start the next season. Their next four games? 2-2 and a date with the remote control come January. While the Patriots are good, they're still not great. And they're certainly not beating anyone else that badly anytime soon.
4. Vince Young didn't step onto the field until eleven seconds remained in the third quarter of a 59-0 game. He promptly went 0-2 with an interception. Titans fans, say hello to your savior.
-GM
Monday, October 19, 2009
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Hearing Optional: 'Signs' of Self Denial
JW,
Four years after Katrina, the state of Louisiana continues to impress. As you may have read, a Tangipahoa Parish Justice of the Peace has denied a marriage license to an interracial couple, citing concern for the union's potential children and his personal observation that "most interracial marriages do not last long." Justice Bardwell, on behalf of a South still fighting the notion that racism is our defining feature, let me be the first to say thanks.
And thanks also to another community embroiled in self-deception: the deaf! I was reading theatre reviews in the New York Times recently--and perhaps I should just stop there--when I came across this lovely tidbit. A staged version of Carson McCullers' novel The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter is being protested by the deaf community because a "hearing" actor has been cast in a deaf role--the equivalent, says (um, signs?) deaf actor Linda Bove, of "putting a white actor in blackface."
Let's be clear on this. Deafness, first a disability, then a subculture, has now risen to the level of a separate race. To accept a cochlear implant (click here for a truly fascinating summary of the deaf community's response to that particular wizardry) is to become a race traitor. A deaf Uncle Tom. Furthermore, dramatic portrayals of the deaf "race" may only be made by members of that group. It's a good thing they're not reviving The Miracle Worker, I suppose. Given the specifics of Helen Keller's differently-abledness, they'd never cast the damn thing!
JW, I'm convinced that we can extrapolate from these fiascoes any number of sports-related lessons having to do with delusional coaching and general management buffoonery. What say you?
-GM
GM,
I say we should be clear on a certain stance just in case there are any liberals out there who read our post and completely fail to understand sarcasm. (Hard to imagine, I know.) Despite our Southern heritage, we're fine with interracial marriage--even interracial schooling!
I know you'd probably like for me to relate this to sports as soon as possible, but I don't even think your lengthy post adequately covers the lunacy that's unfolding before our eyes. The CBS News story you linked us to is very direct in addressing the problem--deaf people resent the aid of science, hearing devices, and the hearing able.
The deaf community feels that its way of life is fully functional, and that using American Sign Language instead of oral English gives them no disadvantage in society.
I had my friend read the line aloud just so I could say, "I can't believe my ears!" Granted, at least 50 percent of the noises on this planet are annoying, just as at least 50 percent of smells are unpleasant, but I would never claim that a hearing-impaired or smelling-impaired person is on an even playing field. From a leisure perspective, deaf people are missing an entire art form--the best art form--in music. From a social perspective, sarcastic signing must be nearly impossible. From a safety perspective, inability to hear key phrases like "Look out!," "Heads up!," and "I'll f---ing kill you!" must be hazardous.
Denial this detrimental could only be matched by Sylvester Croom, who coached Mississippi State to four years of dreadfulness and one winning season. Granted, Croom took over when the program was at its lowest point (2003 saw the team finish 2-10 and 1-7 in the SEC), but his coaching philosophy was simply mind-boggling:
1. Kick players off the team for committing any sort of infraction, including cutting class, regardless of their potential contribution to the team.
2. Run the west-coast offense--an offense that requires intelligence at all positions--with players who averaged an 18 on the ACT. (Note: A few years ago, I read a Commercial Appeal article reporting that 50 percent of African-Americans in Mississippi aren't eligible for college. Imagine what that does to recruiting.)
3. Miss an entire recruiting season (his first) because the Packers (the team he coached running backs for) made the playoffs.
4. Frequently punt the ball from inside the other team's 40-yard line.
A recently trendy definition of insanity is "doing the same thing as before and expecting different results." I say a better definition is believing one thing despite proof to the contrary. If deafness is a race, label me a racist for holding the traditional view that lacking one of the five senses is, in fact, unfortunate. If I had a deaf child, he or she would get a cochlear implant (a race upgrade, if you will) faster than you could sign a protest.
-JW
Four years after Katrina, the state of Louisiana continues to impress. As you may have read, a Tangipahoa Parish Justice of the Peace has denied a marriage license to an interracial couple, citing concern for the union's potential children and his personal observation that "most interracial marriages do not last long." Justice Bardwell, on behalf of a South still fighting the notion that racism is our defining feature, let me be the first to say thanks.
And thanks also to another community embroiled in self-deception: the deaf! I was reading theatre reviews in the New York Times recently--and perhaps I should just stop there--when I came across this lovely tidbit. A staged version of Carson McCullers' novel The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter is being protested by the deaf community because a "hearing" actor has been cast in a deaf role--the equivalent, says (um, signs?) deaf actor Linda Bove, of "putting a white actor in blackface."
Let's be clear on this. Deafness, first a disability, then a subculture, has now risen to the level of a separate race. To accept a cochlear implant (click here for a truly fascinating summary of the deaf community's response to that particular wizardry) is to become a race traitor. A deaf Uncle Tom. Furthermore, dramatic portrayals of the deaf "race" may only be made by members of that group. It's a good thing they're not reviving The Miracle Worker, I suppose. Given the specifics of Helen Keller's differently-abledness, they'd never cast the damn thing!
JW, I'm convinced that we can extrapolate from these fiascoes any number of sports-related lessons having to do with delusional coaching and general management buffoonery. What say you?
-GM
GM,
I say we should be clear on a certain stance just in case there are any liberals out there who read our post and completely fail to understand sarcasm. (Hard to imagine, I know.) Despite our Southern heritage, we're fine with interracial marriage--even interracial schooling!
I know you'd probably like for me to relate this to sports as soon as possible, but I don't even think your lengthy post adequately covers the lunacy that's unfolding before our eyes. The CBS News story you linked us to is very direct in addressing the problem--deaf people resent the aid of science, hearing devices, and the hearing able.
The deaf community feels that its way of life is fully functional, and that using American Sign Language instead of oral English gives them no disadvantage in society.
I had my friend read the line aloud just so I could say, "I can't believe my ears!" Granted, at least 50 percent of the noises on this planet are annoying, just as at least 50 percent of smells are unpleasant, but I would never claim that a hearing-impaired or smelling-impaired person is on an even playing field. From a leisure perspective, deaf people are missing an entire art form--the best art form--in music. From a social perspective, sarcastic signing must be nearly impossible. From a safety perspective, inability to hear key phrases like "Look out!," "Heads up!," and "I'll f---ing kill you!" must be hazardous.
Denial this detrimental could only be matched by Sylvester Croom, who coached Mississippi State to four years of dreadfulness and one winning season. Granted, Croom took over when the program was at its lowest point (2003 saw the team finish 2-10 and 1-7 in the SEC), but his coaching philosophy was simply mind-boggling:
1. Kick players off the team for committing any sort of infraction, including cutting class, regardless of their potential contribution to the team.
2. Run the west-coast offense--an offense that requires intelligence at all positions--with players who averaged an 18 on the ACT. (Note: A few years ago, I read a Commercial Appeal article reporting that 50 percent of African-Americans in Mississippi aren't eligible for college. Imagine what that does to recruiting.)
3. Miss an entire recruiting season (his first) because the Packers (the team he coached running backs for) made the playoffs.
4. Frequently punt the ball from inside the other team's 40-yard line.
A recently trendy definition of insanity is "doing the same thing as before and expecting different results." I say a better definition is believing one thing despite proof to the contrary. If deafness is a race, label me a racist for holding the traditional view that lacking one of the five senses is, in fact, unfortunate. If I had a deaf child, he or she would get a cochlear implant (a race upgrade, if you will) faster than you could sign a protest.
-JW
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Rushing to Judgment (Lost in Limbaugh?)
GM,
It’s frightening to know that Al Davis has job security despite his dreadful incompetence, while Rush Limbaugh may be prevented from buying a team because of his political views. The fact is, though, that for many mega-successful businessmen, success is due to an utter refusal to reveal potentially unpopular or divisive stances. Hell, ask Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods, who are notorious for refusing to admit they’re Democrats because it would harm their brands. For media personalities, on the other hand, niches make riches, and Rush’s niche is conservative America, which, contrary to what popular television programming would have us believe, is a pretty big segment in this country. Should his bid to own an NFL team be denied just because he votes differently and thinks differently than three-fourths of the players? Reverend Al Sharpton seems to think so. (Scroll halfway down or search "Sharpton".)
In an interview with Anderson Cooper Monday, Sharpton joined former Dolphins running back Mercury Morris to talk about the possibility. While Morris seemed level-headed through much of the interview (and I’ll get to his absurdity later), Sharpton suggested that Rush’s attempt at ownership should immediately be squashed simply because of his past comments about Donovan McNabb, Michael Vick (scroll down to Story #8), and the league in general.
Morris was reasonable--saying he had every right to buy the team but that it may be unwise because of his reputation--until he arrived at this:
We have got a president now who is the quarterback. And I think that that's what's bothering Limbaugh the most, is that the guy who is calling the shots here in this country is a black man.
And, so, how can I have some power? Well, let me buy some -- some people, and then I can put who I want in there, rather than who's the best person there.
If you think Rush is a racist, fine, although his McNabb remarks weren’t racist; rather, they accused the sports media of being racist. But surely he’s not so racist that he would burn through his own money and reputation to ruin a franchise so that white players can see more playing time. If that is the case, I highly suggest he first consult Larry Bird.
-JW
JW,
I saw the segment you linked us to live, and I'm now ready to declare that I support anything that allows former NFL players to talk politics with Anderson Cooper and Al Sharpton. So what if CNN's journalistic standards are losing ground to Kent Brockman at this point? This is television we're talking about, and I couldn't have been more enthralled if the participants had been juggling pies.
After all, the Limbaugh story has spent the past week engendering that strange mix of careerism and self-righteousness peculiar to television and newspaper personalities during an invented crisis. Anderson Cooper was at his faux-compassionate best; Kevin Blackistone strung together several complete sentences; and Jason Whitlock broke out the hyperbole like it was going bad in his refrigerator. Add to that Mercury Morris's unintentional exploration of the political insensitivity of sports "ownership" and you've got my favorite story of the year.
What you've also got, of course, is a story that exposes the laughable hypocrisy of the people who run the American media establishment. While you're right about Jordan and Woods, surely you've noticed that Keith Olbermann has done quite well on NBC's pre-game show despite a niche every bit as intricately defined as Rush's and potentially as overbearing. This is the guy, don't forget, who called television's 24 a right-wing plot to breed intolerance of Arabs. (He's right, by the way, in that I'm pronouncing it A-rabs in my head and giggling.) This is the guy who refers to the "irrational" Right on one program and calls the Right's favorite game on another. Simply put, he's a double agent, just like Limbaugh. To the extent that the men and women in charge overlook him, they do so because they spend long stretches of time having forgotten that conservatives even exist. That we're not all in agreement.
It seems clear at this point that Limbaugh's not going to get his team, and in the end, the real victims of this debacle are the people of St. Louis. After all, they were very close to putting the team in the hands of someone who actually cares about football. So what if those hands are a little dirty? Last I checked, the wins still count.
-GM
It’s frightening to know that Al Davis has job security despite his dreadful incompetence, while Rush Limbaugh may be prevented from buying a team because of his political views. The fact is, though, that for many mega-successful businessmen, success is due to an utter refusal to reveal potentially unpopular or divisive stances. Hell, ask Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods, who are notorious for refusing to admit they’re Democrats because it would harm their brands. For media personalities, on the other hand, niches make riches, and Rush’s niche is conservative America, which, contrary to what popular television programming would have us believe, is a pretty big segment in this country. Should his bid to own an NFL team be denied just because he votes differently and thinks differently than three-fourths of the players? Reverend Al Sharpton seems to think so. (Scroll halfway down or search "Sharpton".)
In an interview with Anderson Cooper Monday, Sharpton joined former Dolphins running back Mercury Morris to talk about the possibility. While Morris seemed level-headed through much of the interview (and I’ll get to his absurdity later), Sharpton suggested that Rush’s attempt at ownership should immediately be squashed simply because of his past comments about Donovan McNabb, Michael Vick (scroll down to Story #8), and the league in general.
Morris was reasonable--saying he had every right to buy the team but that it may be unwise because of his reputation--until he arrived at this:
We have got a president now who is the quarterback. And I think that that's what's bothering Limbaugh the most, is that the guy who is calling the shots here in this country is a black man.
And, so, how can I have some power? Well, let me buy some -- some people, and then I can put who I want in there, rather than who's the best person there.
If you think Rush is a racist, fine, although his McNabb remarks weren’t racist; rather, they accused the sports media of being racist. But surely he’s not so racist that he would burn through his own money and reputation to ruin a franchise so that white players can see more playing time. If that is the case, I highly suggest he first consult Larry Bird.
-JW
JW,
I saw the segment you linked us to live, and I'm now ready to declare that I support anything that allows former NFL players to talk politics with Anderson Cooper and Al Sharpton. So what if CNN's journalistic standards are losing ground to Kent Brockman at this point? This is television we're talking about, and I couldn't have been more enthralled if the participants had been juggling pies.
After all, the Limbaugh story has spent the past week engendering that strange mix of careerism and self-righteousness peculiar to television and newspaper personalities during an invented crisis. Anderson Cooper was at his faux-compassionate best; Kevin Blackistone strung together several complete sentences; and Jason Whitlock broke out the hyperbole like it was going bad in his refrigerator. Add to that Mercury Morris's unintentional exploration of the political insensitivity of sports "ownership" and you've got my favorite story of the year.
What you've also got, of course, is a story that exposes the laughable hypocrisy of the people who run the American media establishment. While you're right about Jordan and Woods, surely you've noticed that Keith Olbermann has done quite well on NBC's pre-game show despite a niche every bit as intricately defined as Rush's and potentially as overbearing. This is the guy, don't forget, who called television's 24 a right-wing plot to breed intolerance of Arabs. (He's right, by the way, in that I'm pronouncing it A-rabs in my head and giggling.) This is the guy who refers to the "irrational" Right on one program and calls the Right's favorite game on another. Simply put, he's a double agent, just like Limbaugh. To the extent that the men and women in charge overlook him, they do so because they spend long stretches of time having forgotten that conservatives even exist. That we're not all in agreement.
It seems clear at this point that Limbaugh's not going to get his team, and in the end, the real victims of this debacle are the people of St. Louis. After all, they were very close to putting the team in the hands of someone who actually cares about football. So what if those hands are a little dirty? Last I checked, the wins still count.
-GM
Monday, October 12, 2009
Perverse Entertainment
JW,
On January 6th, 2007, my beloved Kansas City Chiefs played the Indianapolis Colts for forty-one playoff minutes before making a first down. Their final line? Forty-four rushing yards, seven first downs, and 126 yards of total offense against a defense for whom "porous" would have been a compliment. I'm bringing this up to let you know that I thought I'd seen everything as far as football incompetence is concerned. The Chiefs snuck into the playoffs that year (needing and getting a Detroit win over Dallas and a San Francisco win over Denver, in addition to their own win), and they played like a team that didn't belong. That day was an embarrassment, and in a lot of ways I'm still getting over it.
Happily, I took a big step in the right direction yesterday when I watched (yes, watched) the Buffalo Bills host the Cleveland Browns in what has to be the worst football game ever played, on any level. Though the stats are agonizing (193 offensive yards for the winning Browns; sixteen combined punts; thirty percent combined third-down efficiency), it's this number that really stands out: two for seventeen. That's Derek Anderson's passing line. That's the winning quarterback. At this point, it's not just the NFL that wishes it could take back Anderson's 2008 Pro Bowl appearance. Hawaii itself is pissed off.
But hey, talk about a healing experience! Watching passes swirl in the wind, watching Jamal Lewis contribute meaningfully to a professional football team, I couldn't help but come a little closer to forgiving my Chiefs (though Herm Edwards can never be forgiven, that touchdown-hating bastard). Unless Trent Edwards' parents live in, say, Topeka, I may have been the only person outside of New York and Ohio who watched this game. Let me tell you, though. It was well worth it.
-GM
GM,
I've watched as much football as anybody over the last 10 years, and I've seen some horrible stuff. A high school game tied 0-0 at the end of regulation. An onside kick literally go backwards. I was present when Auburn beat Mississippi State 3-2 last year. It's always a little funnier when it happens in the NFL, though. After all, these guys are getting paid heftily to entertain us. Ironically, to the fans who know the league best, there's a large entertainment value to total incompetence. And let's not pretend yesterday's Bills/Browns showdown was some sort of defensive exhibition. It takes skill, timing, and chemistry to make an offense work--more so than for a defense--and neither of these teams have any of those attributes.
Personally, I had to decide if I wanted to dedicate my space today to telling you why Alabama deserved to jump Texas in both polls (obvious, although the coaches stubbornly kept Texas at No. 2), discussing the Denver Broncos' 5-0 start (unfathomable), or filling today's section with more embarrassment from the NFL (what I'll actually do). Get ready for the most amazing QB statistics you've ever seen in your life. They belong to JaMarcus Russell... through five games, all of which he's started.
51-for-121 (42 percent), 606 yards, 4 interceptions, 1 touchdown
Yet he and his 47.1 QB rating continue to take the field every week. Do you remember when this guy signed? He took forever to do so, holding out for more money while we rolled our eyes knowing he'd be a huge bust. On the field, he looks clueless, overweight, and apathetic. Nothing about him says "NFL quarterback." Everything says "Raider."
Yesterday against the Giants, Russell had (by far) his best game of the season statistically. He was 8-for-13 with no interceptions. Think about this, though. The Raiders were down 28-0 in the second quarter, and Russell threw only 13 passes?! The way I see it, that's Tom Cable making a statement to Al Davis:
"We will never come from behind with this guy under center, so let me play a real quarterback, or this is what you'll see--a losing team milking the clock with predictable running plays."
From the owner to the coaching staff to the face of the franchise to the fans, the Raiders are a joke. Hey, at least it's a funny one. I once flew to Miami to watch the Dolphins beat the Raiders the year Oakland went to the Super Bowl. As I walked through the airport afterward, I noticed that the dejected fans continued to wear their gear for the returning flight! Imagine these guys moping down a terminal.
-JW
On January 6th, 2007, my beloved Kansas City Chiefs played the Indianapolis Colts for forty-one playoff minutes before making a first down. Their final line? Forty-four rushing yards, seven first downs, and 126 yards of total offense against a defense for whom "porous" would have been a compliment. I'm bringing this up to let you know that I thought I'd seen everything as far as football incompetence is concerned. The Chiefs snuck into the playoffs that year (needing and getting a Detroit win over Dallas and a San Francisco win over Denver, in addition to their own win), and they played like a team that didn't belong. That day was an embarrassment, and in a lot of ways I'm still getting over it.
Happily, I took a big step in the right direction yesterday when I watched (yes, watched) the Buffalo Bills host the Cleveland Browns in what has to be the worst football game ever played, on any level. Though the stats are agonizing (193 offensive yards for the winning Browns; sixteen combined punts; thirty percent combined third-down efficiency), it's this number that really stands out: two for seventeen. That's Derek Anderson's passing line. That's the winning quarterback. At this point, it's not just the NFL that wishes it could take back Anderson's 2008 Pro Bowl appearance. Hawaii itself is pissed off.
But hey, talk about a healing experience! Watching passes swirl in the wind, watching Jamal Lewis contribute meaningfully to a professional football team, I couldn't help but come a little closer to forgiving my Chiefs (though Herm Edwards can never be forgiven, that touchdown-hating bastard). Unless Trent Edwards' parents live in, say, Topeka, I may have been the only person outside of New York and Ohio who watched this game. Let me tell you, though. It was well worth it.
-GM
GM,
I've watched as much football as anybody over the last 10 years, and I've seen some horrible stuff. A high school game tied 0-0 at the end of regulation. An onside kick literally go backwards. I was present when Auburn beat Mississippi State 3-2 last year. It's always a little funnier when it happens in the NFL, though. After all, these guys are getting paid heftily to entertain us. Ironically, to the fans who know the league best, there's a large entertainment value to total incompetence. And let's not pretend yesterday's Bills/Browns showdown was some sort of defensive exhibition. It takes skill, timing, and chemistry to make an offense work--more so than for a defense--and neither of these teams have any of those attributes.
Personally, I had to decide if I wanted to dedicate my space today to telling you why Alabama deserved to jump Texas in both polls (obvious, although the coaches stubbornly kept Texas at No. 2), discussing the Denver Broncos' 5-0 start (unfathomable), or filling today's section with more embarrassment from the NFL (what I'll actually do). Get ready for the most amazing QB statistics you've ever seen in your life. They belong to JaMarcus Russell... through five games, all of which he's started.
51-for-121 (42 percent), 606 yards, 4 interceptions, 1 touchdown
Yet he and his 47.1 QB rating continue to take the field every week. Do you remember when this guy signed? He took forever to do so, holding out for more money while we rolled our eyes knowing he'd be a huge bust. On the field, he looks clueless, overweight, and apathetic. Nothing about him says "NFL quarterback." Everything says "Raider."
Yesterday against the Giants, Russell had (by far) his best game of the season statistically. He was 8-for-13 with no interceptions. Think about this, though. The Raiders were down 28-0 in the second quarter, and Russell threw only 13 passes?! The way I see it, that's Tom Cable making a statement to Al Davis:
"We will never come from behind with this guy under center, so let me play a real quarterback, or this is what you'll see--a losing team milking the clock with predictable running plays."
From the owner to the coaching staff to the face of the franchise to the fans, the Raiders are a joke. Hey, at least it's a funny one. I once flew to Miami to watch the Dolphins beat the Raiders the year Oakland went to the Super Bowl. As I walked through the airport afterward, I noticed that the dejected fans continued to wear their gear for the returning flight! Imagine these guys moping down a terminal.
-JW
Friday, October 9, 2009
Special Report: The Obama Nobel Peace Prize
Here at Smarter Than Y'all, we're particularly attuned to moments of cultural (and multi-cultural) insanity. Hence the Wal-Mart jibes and the complaints about vehicular scrotum. You can imagine our glee, then, at waking up this morning to the news that Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize, thus entering the proud company of an anti-semite, a beaurocratic stooge, and a terrorist. And that's just the last fifteen years! They didn't give out the prize between 1939 and 1943, but if they had, you can bet that one of them would have gone to Hitler.
Though Obama's "prize" (1.4 million dollars and a citation that half the world views as fraudulent on its best day) is stupid for a number of reasons, chief among them has to be the misplaced idealism and political symbolism that informed the council's decision. Consider the New York Times' take on the award--a take which, as usual, manages to combine startling canniness with breathless naivete:
In one sense, the award was a rebuke to the foreign policies of Mr. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, some of which the president has sought to overturn. Mr. Obama made repairing the fractured relations between the United States and the rest of the world a major theme of his campaign for the presidency. Since taking office as president he has pursued a range of policies intended to fulfill that goal. He has vowed to pursue a world without nuclear weapons, as he did in a speech in Prague earlier this year; reached out to the Muslim world, delivering a major speech in Cairo in June; and sought to restart peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.
While a complete explication would involve more time than we're willing to commit, please note that although the Times has Obama "seeking," "making priorities," "pursuing," "intending,"
"vowing," "reaching out," and "seeking" (yet again), it doesn't have him achieving much of anything. Furthermore, the goals in question are patently unachievable. Or so sayeth history. A world without nuclear weapons? Peace in Israel? A permanent, meaningful repairing of America's "fractured" relations? Fool's gold, all of them. The province of poets, not presidents.
Only half a day into the story, commentators are already asserting that the Nobel committee's citation reads more like "a wish list" than a list of achievements. Those hoping Obama will decline the award, however, quite clearly fail to know our president.
-GM and JW
Though Obama's "prize" (1.4 million dollars and a citation that half the world views as fraudulent on its best day) is stupid for a number of reasons, chief among them has to be the misplaced idealism and political symbolism that informed the council's decision. Consider the New York Times' take on the award--a take which, as usual, manages to combine startling canniness with breathless naivete:
In one sense, the award was a rebuke to the foreign policies of Mr. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, some of which the president has sought to overturn. Mr. Obama made repairing the fractured relations between the United States and the rest of the world a major theme of his campaign for the presidency. Since taking office as president he has pursued a range of policies intended to fulfill that goal. He has vowed to pursue a world without nuclear weapons, as he did in a speech in Prague earlier this year; reached out to the Muslim world, delivering a major speech in Cairo in June; and sought to restart peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.
While a complete explication would involve more time than we're willing to commit, please note that although the Times has Obama "seeking," "making priorities," "pursuing," "intending,"
"vowing," "reaching out," and "seeking" (yet again), it doesn't have him achieving much of anything. Furthermore, the goals in question are patently unachievable. Or so sayeth history. A world without nuclear weapons? Peace in Israel? A permanent, meaningful repairing of America's "fractured" relations? Fool's gold, all of them. The province of poets, not presidents.
Only half a day into the story, commentators are already asserting that the Nobel committee's citation reads more like "a wish list" than a list of achievements. Those hoping Obama will decline the award, however, quite clearly fail to know our president.
-GM and JW
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
