As I am out until next week, I thought I might scribe one more "editorial" before I go in the hope I might interject some last bit of amusement for the next few days.
In the bar (after my hockey game, and thus not in a saloon for no better reason than the gratuitous consumption of alcohol for alcohol's sake), my teammates and I were discussing the ridiculousness of the current "bowl" schedule. At the crux of the issue being discussed was the fact that the BCS and recent and current college AD's have completely dismantled what was a great set up of New Year's Eve and New Year's Day bowl games, dispersing them, for television and advertising revenue purposes, over what seems like an eternity through December and into January. Additionally, like the Bad News Bears of the "Chico's Bail Bonds" sponsorship, college football and the NCAA have embraced any and all comers willing to kick a few bucks into the coffers to get their names on "any old" bowl game.
Check out this list of some classic "bowls". There is the "Beef O'Brady Bowl" between Rutgers and UCF (not the side dish of Undercooked CauliFlower but University of Central Florida who's mascot maybe a raw vegetable, for all I know). Clearly one of the odds on favorites for best/worst bowl name and sponsor, this match up in St. Petersburg must find its stands filled with geriatric snowbirds who think it is actually a buffet give away as opposed to a football game. Imagine all the white caddy's in the parking lot and the confused looks of the somewhat senile local septuagenarians as they seek out their bowl of stew.
In other "classic" bowls let us not pass over the "Sheraton Hawaii Bowl". The destination makes this bowl a worthwhile enterprise for winter vacationing but I cannot fathom how they will play a full football game in the parking lot out back of the Honolulu hotel. "Little Caesar's" gets billing for its sponsored game. Rumour is they are also running a "buy a ticket, get a foreclosed Detroit house for free deal" in hopes of moving a few of the foreclosed and rundown houses that blight that city. There is the "Meineke Car Care Bowl" from which each team gets a free muffler for its team bus. There is the "Emerald Bowl" which may be worth going if they hand out free jewels, or you really like the colour green. There is the "Brut Sun Bowl" [this one leaves too many jokes to even begin to address it]. There is the "Texas Bowl", which someone very subtly named and is played in - wait for it - Texas. There is the "International Bowl" which was played last year and not renewed because it was no longer safe to play football in Kandahar or Canada. I cannot remember which. There is the "Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl" being played by Nevada and Boston College [the question here is whether the Jesuits can convert those crazy folks from the Sin State on the field]. Kraft is, in the holiday spirit, going to offer free tickets and mac-n-cheese to fill the stands. And please do not forget last year's two notable bowl games sponsored by GMAC and Citi. The BCS chose to rotate out both of these as sponsors after the Administration demanded the games be renamed the "US Government Bailout Bowls".
After examining these sponsors and more (Valero Alamo, New Era Pinstripe, AutoZone, AT&T, Papajohn's, Allstate, GoDaddy.com, Military, Capital One, Outback, Chick-fil-A, Insight, Bell Helicopter Armed Forces, Hyundai Sun, TicketCity, Vizio Rose Bowl, Tostitos Fiesta, Discover Orange, BBVA Compass, Kraft Fight Hunger, Champs Sports, Franklin American Mortgage Music City, S.D. County Credit Union Poinsettia, Bridgepoint Education Holiday, New Mexico and R+L Carriers Bowls…phew), I wondered what other bowls we should be considering. First in mind of course is the "Kohler Toilet Bowl" which could be played in Newark. How about the "Chipolte Burrito Bowl" played somewhere in a strip mall near you (not to be confused with the "Taco Bell Playing for the Whole Enchilada Bowl"). There could be a "Cialis Bowl" which would be played in Toronto at the Skydome to take advantage of the hotel overlooking the field (do the curtains still open facing the field?). Viagra might agree to sponsor a game, as a competitor to Cialis, going with the "Bath Tub Bowl" (because we have all seen those adds of the couple sitting in bathtubs in the middle of a field). The game would not be scheduled but could pop up at any moment. There might be a "Cotex Bowl" which would be played in a stadium with no seating so that you would have to watch it at home while being nagged. And maybe there could be a "Xanax Bowl" where no one cares who wins but everyone is super happy to be there.
With all this food for thought, one wonders why the BCS cannot figure out a playoff system and a real national championship. Then again maybe they should consider talking with CBS, as I think I have the perfect National Championship Playoff system sponsor. How about "The Price is Right Bowl and Championship"?
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
WikiStink
Who is this clown Julian Assange. Terrorist? Criminal? Scum? Maybe I should not antagonize him, God forbid he reads my blog (as if more than 2 people do and only if they are really, really bored), in fear that he will release some buried details related to my character flaws. I guess I should consider heading him off at the pass. I have many (character flaws). Just ask my wife (she who should be sainted), friends (note: they are still my friends, or at least they claim to be), college roommates (they have probably the most lethal information from my days of delinquency on campus in North Carolina) and parents (if only they knew half of what I did).
So back to the question: "just who is this guy"? He is no crusader. He is no journalist of the ilk involved in the New York Times 1971 expose on Vietnam (using Dept of Defense releases) nor is he either Woodward or Bernstein breaking "deep throat" and Watergate. He is a bad guy who is potentially putting many at risk by compromising the value of the "diplomatic pouch". He has circumnavigated age old courtesy and privilege which enables nations to direct discussions that often avert calamity and misunderstanding. [Let us be clear, not everyone needs to know everything, and not everyone should know everything (in many cases they cannot begin to understand the basics, let alone the subtleties involved). Wikileaks, on the face of it, thinks everyone deserves access to all (but that is not the real purpose, unless you are naïve)].
Wikileaks claims to be a non-profit media organization which is "dedicated to bringing important news and information to the public". Horse puckey. Wikileaks is really just an 7 year old girl on the playground, whispering and gossiping unpleasantries in an attempt to achieve personal gain. "So and so said this or that". "So and so is ugly". "So and so likes so and so", and so on. Wikileaks and Assange appear to be more playground bullies threatening, first nations, now banks and others with the release of information, then true beacon of light and hope.
Look at who has issued supporting credential for Wikileaks. It has received accolades from the likes of Amnesty International and Time Magazine. Consider the sources here. While Amnesty has done some very good work and is very relevant in the field of human rights abuses, it does from time to time throw out a curveball of global proportions driven by a wonderful naïveté we would all like to espouse and yet, in the disappointment of real life, understand is not reality. "Time" is a rag I don't even read in the toilet.
If you take the time to read Assange's manifesto, you will come to realize the true lunatic he is. Aside from any lack of discretion in what he releases or says, this is a guy who clearly fashions himself a Blofeld of Bond proportions. He even has his own underground, now not so secret, lair from which he plots to destroy the world (or at least continue to be a nuisance). Assange believes that by making public secret documents, he will force governments to become even more secretive and thus make them less effective and ultimately, in reducing their effectiveness, create "more open and more morally superior alternatives". He is recluse (a nice way of putting it). A coward, as are most bullies hiding from public eye, by in large, instead of standing up to be seen in all his mud slinging (somewhat like a terrorist in a balaclava who is so devout to his cause yet wants no one to know who he is).
Wikileaks "philosophy. Really? Back to naïve. Does anyone believe this "mission statement"? While I have boiled down and simplified his philosophy here, his clear objective is chaos. Notably, Wikileaks wants to upend a sometime flawed but, in general, system of global cooperation and stability. In its "righteousness" and openness, Wikileaks no longer accepts comments from outside critics. It gets its documents from its bullpen of criminals, which has by its own admission has included Chinese "hackers". How open can an organization be that allows no comments about its behavior? Hypocritical much?
For the nail in the coffin on this clown, Assange himself , arrested in London on the basis of a Swedish warrant (he was released and was pledged bail money by the likes of another blowhard lunatic, US filmmaker Michael "I made one decent movie and now live on my laurels" Moore) related to sex-crime allegations, objected to the disclosure of the details related to his case. Good for the goose, good for the gander?
At the end of the day, Assange is a petulant child. What his motivation really is, other than to create chaos and focus attention on himself is anyone's guess. Maybe it is about his relationship with his mother. Maybe he was picked on in school. Maybe he was left at the alter. Maybe he is just a first rate, morally abject jerk. Whatever the case, he should crawl back into his underground bunker, seal it shut and live his life out like the worthless cave dweller he is, leaving all of us in peace.
Funny, I know another guy, of similar ilk, living in a cave. Some guy Obama something? Somewhere in Afghanistan? Does he need a roommate?
So back to the question: "just who is this guy"? He is no crusader. He is no journalist of the ilk involved in the New York Times 1971 expose on Vietnam (using Dept of Defense releases) nor is he either Woodward or Bernstein breaking "deep throat" and Watergate. He is a bad guy who is potentially putting many at risk by compromising the value of the "diplomatic pouch". He has circumnavigated age old courtesy and privilege which enables nations to direct discussions that often avert calamity and misunderstanding. [Let us be clear, not everyone needs to know everything, and not everyone should know everything (in many cases they cannot begin to understand the basics, let alone the subtleties involved). Wikileaks, on the face of it, thinks everyone deserves access to all (but that is not the real purpose, unless you are naïve)].
Wikileaks claims to be a non-profit media organization which is "dedicated to bringing important news and information to the public". Horse puckey. Wikileaks is really just an 7 year old girl on the playground, whispering and gossiping unpleasantries in an attempt to achieve personal gain. "So and so said this or that". "So and so is ugly". "So and so likes so and so", and so on. Wikileaks and Assange appear to be more playground bullies threatening, first nations, now banks and others with the release of information, then true beacon of light and hope.
Look at who has issued supporting credential for Wikileaks. It has received accolades from the likes of Amnesty International and Time Magazine. Consider the sources here. While Amnesty has done some very good work and is very relevant in the field of human rights abuses, it does from time to time throw out a curveball of global proportions driven by a wonderful naïveté we would all like to espouse and yet, in the disappointment of real life, understand is not reality. "Time" is a rag I don't even read in the toilet.
If you take the time to read Assange's manifesto, you will come to realize the true lunatic he is. Aside from any lack of discretion in what he releases or says, this is a guy who clearly fashions himself a Blofeld of Bond proportions. He even has his own underground, now not so secret, lair from which he plots to destroy the world (or at least continue to be a nuisance). Assange believes that by making public secret documents, he will force governments to become even more secretive and thus make them less effective and ultimately, in reducing their effectiveness, create "more open and more morally superior alternatives". He is recluse (a nice way of putting it). A coward, as are most bullies hiding from public eye, by in large, instead of standing up to be seen in all his mud slinging (somewhat like a terrorist in a balaclava who is so devout to his cause yet wants no one to know who he is).
Wikileaks "philosophy. Really? Back to naïve. Does anyone believe this "mission statement"? While I have boiled down and simplified his philosophy here, his clear objective is chaos. Notably, Wikileaks wants to upend a sometime flawed but, in general, system of global cooperation and stability. In its "righteousness" and openness, Wikileaks no longer accepts comments from outside critics. It gets its documents from its bullpen of criminals, which has by its own admission has included Chinese "hackers". How open can an organization be that allows no comments about its behavior? Hypocritical much?
For the nail in the coffin on this clown, Assange himself , arrested in London on the basis of a Swedish warrant (he was released and was pledged bail money by the likes of another blowhard lunatic, US filmmaker Michael "I made one decent movie and now live on my laurels" Moore) related to sex-crime allegations, objected to the disclosure of the details related to his case. Good for the goose, good for the gander?
At the end of the day, Assange is a petulant child. What his motivation really is, other than to create chaos and focus attention on himself is anyone's guess. Maybe it is about his relationship with his mother. Maybe he was picked on in school. Maybe he was left at the alter. Maybe he is just a first rate, morally abject jerk. Whatever the case, he should crawl back into his underground bunker, seal it shut and live his life out like the worthless cave dweller he is, leaving all of us in peace.
Funny, I know another guy, of similar ilk, living in a cave. Some guy Obama something? Somewhere in Afghanistan? Does he need a roommate?
Monday, December 20, 2010
Flag Football
When did football become a "touch sport". There has been a lot of publicity, seemingly more so this year, involving contact in football. Some of it has been related to egregiously violent hits but some of it has been ticky-tacky stuff that makes me embarrassed as a former football player to explain the NFL's policies.
Football is a "contact sport". It has lived through a history of some tragedies, as a result of its violence. We all know the story of Nick Buoniconti's son or Darryl Stingley and countless others who have been paralyzed in violently, if not dirty hits. That said, these tragedies are a small minority in a game which involves violent collisions and impacts as part of the fun and skill of playing.
Hitting is something young boys learn. We play "kill the carrier" on school; fields. Tackle football games often start in backyards with no pads and many cuts and bruises explained to mothers when answering the dinner bell. What boy has not taken some delight in making that tackle or delivering that blow, in organized sport or pick up games, which saved a game or jarred a ball loose. It is a right of passage, not for all young boys, but for many. Defensive layers are tough and gritty. They have that viciousness that they are not allowed to show in any other aspect of their lives. It is viciousness, but measured aggression. There are limits.
In the NFL Quarterbacks, as an example, now seemingly have a bubble around them, not unlike that around (the head's of girls) in high school lacrosse (and interesting comparison for argument and debate). While QB's are the marquee for the sport (just ask Ben, I've been a naughty boy, Roethlisberger or his friend Michael "I've never met a dog I did not like" Vick), their seeming "untouchability" is a farce. Sliding, now a mainstay in the sport for protecting scrambling quarterbacks does not do justice to the great Scramblers from the past like Fran Tarkenton or Kenny Stabler. Ironmen quarterbacks like Joe Namath and Joe Montana must wince at what pampered prima donnas who prance around behind their behemoth lineman. Even wide receivers and running backs now opt to dance out of bounds rather than turning up the field, taking the hit to gain the extra yard or two.
Last night I watched the Steelers/Jets game and the referees helped to turn the tide of the game with one such pampered. "protective" call. Maybe "turned the tide is an exaggeration, but there was certainly impact in the call [Note: I am an equal opportunity disliker of both the Jets and Steelers, so no bias exists here]. The Steelers defensive back put a lick on the Jets wide receiver that brought me to my feet. It was an all-world shellacking. Unfortunately for him, he was called for leading with his head and was flagged for a personal foul and a 15 yard penalty. He actually made contact, as was very apparent in the replay with his hand and forearms. Maybe he was flagged because he is one of the more vocal opponents of the "wussification" of football. Maybe he was flagged because the speed and impact of the hit was such that the referee, with no access to a replay, felt the contact was helmet-led.
Whatever the case, football needs to reexamine its priorities in the context of its legacy. If it continues on its current course, it will not be long before the NFL will be calling Vince McMahon and the WWE for help in scripting its games.
Football is a "contact sport". It has lived through a history of some tragedies, as a result of its violence. We all know the story of Nick Buoniconti's son or Darryl Stingley and countless others who have been paralyzed in violently, if not dirty hits. That said, these tragedies are a small minority in a game which involves violent collisions and impacts as part of the fun and skill of playing.
Hitting is something young boys learn. We play "kill the carrier" on school; fields. Tackle football games often start in backyards with no pads and many cuts and bruises explained to mothers when answering the dinner bell. What boy has not taken some delight in making that tackle or delivering that blow, in organized sport or pick up games, which saved a game or jarred a ball loose. It is a right of passage, not for all young boys, but for many. Defensive layers are tough and gritty. They have that viciousness that they are not allowed to show in any other aspect of their lives. It is viciousness, but measured aggression. There are limits.
In the NFL Quarterbacks, as an example, now seemingly have a bubble around them, not unlike that around (the head's of girls) in high school lacrosse (and interesting comparison for argument and debate). While QB's are the marquee for the sport (just ask Ben, I've been a naughty boy, Roethlisberger or his friend Michael "I've never met a dog I did not like" Vick), their seeming "untouchability" is a farce. Sliding, now a mainstay in the sport for protecting scrambling quarterbacks does not do justice to the great Scramblers from the past like Fran Tarkenton or Kenny Stabler. Ironmen quarterbacks like Joe Namath and Joe Montana must wince at what pampered prima donnas who prance around behind their behemoth lineman. Even wide receivers and running backs now opt to dance out of bounds rather than turning up the field, taking the hit to gain the extra yard or two.
Last night I watched the Steelers/Jets game and the referees helped to turn the tide of the game with one such pampered. "protective" call. Maybe "turned the tide is an exaggeration, but there was certainly impact in the call [Note: I am an equal opportunity disliker of both the Jets and Steelers, so no bias exists here]. The Steelers defensive back put a lick on the Jets wide receiver that brought me to my feet. It was an all-world shellacking. Unfortunately for him, he was called for leading with his head and was flagged for a personal foul and a 15 yard penalty. He actually made contact, as was very apparent in the replay with his hand and forearms. Maybe he was flagged because he is one of the more vocal opponents of the "wussification" of football. Maybe he was flagged because the speed and impact of the hit was such that the referee, with no access to a replay, felt the contact was helmet-led.
Whatever the case, football needs to reexamine its priorities in the context of its legacy. If it continues on its current course, it will not be long before the NFL will be calling Vince McMahon and the WWE for help in scripting its games.
Friday, December 17, 2010
McParenting
So, here is a good one. The Center for Science in the Public Interest has filed suit, on behalf of a mother, against McDonald's claiming that Happy Meals and the toys in Happy Meals are unfairly marketed to kids. The suit was filed for Ms. Monet Parnham who was quoted as saying that: "[she] objects to the fact McDonald's is getting into my kids' heads without any permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat". The Center claims that McDonald's action is "inherently deceptive and unfair". Fabulous. In the world of superfluous lawsuits, Ms. Parnham and Her "Center for Blah, Blah, Blah" have hit the mother load.
I am guessing I don't need to explain that this is clearly a mother unfit to raise children. I can imagine her sitting at home with foil on her head worried that television is either real or a CIA plot at mind control and , of course, she has to watch it (and probably watched 12 hours a day). To argue that a fast food chain has mind control argues that she is either so dumb or so susceptible that her kids, who may be lovely little waifs, are doomed to a life of bitter expectations molded by a woman who believes that Martians actually control a cabal that rules all the major corporations on the planet, and that toys is food packages beckon like sirens to ancient mariners. McDonald's itself sends out subliminal messages which brainwash children to think Happy Meals bring happiness and the American Dream.
Seriously, did this woman claim that McDonald's and not she have control of raising her children? I don't know about you, but I pass at least two McDonald's on the way to work and multiple ones over the course of the weekend taking my children to and from hockey or dance or other weekend activities. There is no tractor beam that I am aware of dragging me, or my kids, into the Golden Arches against my will. My children do not scream mercilessly as we speed past the drive thru lane and billboard menu. They don't cling to the car windows like prisoners in a maximum security penitentiary. As a matter of fact, my kids know that McDonald's is that odd treat that is the exception, not the rule.
So aside from Ms. Parham's idiocy, there is this "Center". I don't know much about these guys. They could be 2 guys and a laptop. They could be a cult that, in its spare time, sells. roses on the side of the road. They could be an organization truly trying to make a difference [Their website says they have existed since 1971 and claims they have 900,00 newsletter subscribers]. In that case, though, they might want to focus their efforts on causes that makes sense. In their own complaint, they say the are filing suit because: '[of McDonald's] touting Apple Dippers and low fat milk while putting french fries in the majority of Happy Meals". Really? McDonald's just puts the fries in and American parents kowtow to both the restaurant and their children in accepting the potatoes as opposed to something more healthy?
My solution is this. Tell Ms. Parham to go home and instead of watching "Days of Our Lives" or "Jersey Shore", spend an hour of her clearly free time watching the Cooking Channel for some tips. Try eating a meal or two at home. Then, if she can read, try reading a few books on parenting. Learn who has control - the parent or the child - and apply it. As for the "Center" stick to luring former hippies to their retreats for "flower power" and spare us as taxpayers and our legal system the burden of such ridiculous lawsuits.
Hey, why don't they "Just Have a Coke and a Smile".
I am guessing I don't need to explain that this is clearly a mother unfit to raise children. I can imagine her sitting at home with foil on her head worried that television is either real or a CIA plot at mind control and , of course, she has to watch it (and probably watched 12 hours a day). To argue that a fast food chain has mind control argues that she is either so dumb or so susceptible that her kids, who may be lovely little waifs, are doomed to a life of bitter expectations molded by a woman who believes that Martians actually control a cabal that rules all the major corporations on the planet, and that toys is food packages beckon like sirens to ancient mariners. McDonald's itself sends out subliminal messages which brainwash children to think Happy Meals bring happiness and the American Dream.
Seriously, did this woman claim that McDonald's and not she have control of raising her children? I don't know about you, but I pass at least two McDonald's on the way to work and multiple ones over the course of the weekend taking my children to and from hockey or dance or other weekend activities. There is no tractor beam that I am aware of dragging me, or my kids, into the Golden Arches against my will. My children do not scream mercilessly as we speed past the drive thru lane and billboard menu. They don't cling to the car windows like prisoners in a maximum security penitentiary. As a matter of fact, my kids know that McDonald's is that odd treat that is the exception, not the rule.
So aside from Ms. Parham's idiocy, there is this "Center". I don't know much about these guys. They could be 2 guys and a laptop. They could be a cult that, in its spare time, sells. roses on the side of the road. They could be an organization truly trying to make a difference [Their website says they have existed since 1971 and claims they have 900,00 newsletter subscribers]. In that case, though, they might want to focus their efforts on causes that makes sense. In their own complaint, they say the are filing suit because: '[of McDonald's] touting Apple Dippers and low fat milk while putting french fries in the majority of Happy Meals". Really? McDonald's just puts the fries in and American parents kowtow to both the restaurant and their children in accepting the potatoes as opposed to something more healthy?
My solution is this. Tell Ms. Parham to go home and instead of watching "Days of Our Lives" or "Jersey Shore", spend an hour of her clearly free time watching the Cooking Channel for some tips. Try eating a meal or two at home. Then, if she can read, try reading a few books on parenting. Learn who has control - the parent or the child - and apply it. As for the "Center" stick to luring former hippies to their retreats for "flower power" and spare us as taxpayers and our legal system the burden of such ridiculous lawsuits.
Hey, why don't they "Just Have a Coke and a Smile".
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
TRIPPED UP
New York Jets assistant coach Sal Alosi has been suspended without pay for the rest of the season for an incident you have all likely seen either in live motion via ESPN and You Tube or frozen in still frame in any number of tabloids or long sheets. This past Sunday, Alosi clearly stuck his knee out and tripped the Miami Dolphin's defensive and special teams player, Nolan Carroll, as he ran to cover a punt.
Good old Sal's actions bring me back to my youth, as it likely does most of my peers, as I remember one of the greatest college football coaches of his era, Woody Hayes, and the sideline punch that drove him to retirement. Hayes won 3 national championships during his reign at Ohio State (1954, 1957 and 1968). One could argue his coaching tenure ran roughly 10 years too long, but it was the 1978 incident in which Hayes smacked an opposing player in the Gator Bowl that created the necessary crescendo. He was promptly fired.
So, how is it some just unheralded strength and conditioning coach is still employed?
Once again, professional sports manage to set the tone for all that is wrong today, not only in athletics, but in society. A coach, a leader and example to players, let alone the children and fans who watch and play the game, hoping to emulate the passes, catches, runs, tackles and interceptions of their favorite stars, behaves in a manner so devoid of sportsmanship that it leaves one gasping. In this case, Coach Alosi, later claimed in quick response to his diabolical actions that he sought remedy by apologizing to both the wronged player, his coach Rex Ryan and the opposing coach Tony Sporano for "the lapse in judgment". Lapse in judgment? That is the best he could come up with. It was downright dirty. Idiotic. Any number of other adjectives could be applied here. Does an apology cover the act. "Oops, I did something stupid". "Oops I got caught". "Oops I apologized". "All better". Not so fast.
It was also, as I have written before, a sad, sad sign of the times. Where million dollar babies do not have the sense to leave the car at home when drinking (despite their more than enviable salaries and the ability to hire a driver for the evening). Where spoiled stars sit on the bench in petulant displays of dissatisfaction over pay packages that rival the GDP of small countries (and you want to complain about Wall Streeters?). Where gangsters and hoods beat their wives and girlfriends, rack up children out of wedlock like cars in a garage and generally fail to set any sort of example. Then again given millions of dollars and substandard educations, what does one expect.
It was Charles Barkley who said "I am not a role model". Correct. Charles was a heck of a basketball player and a very funny man, at times, but he is anything but a role model. He is at times a lout and a buffoon, and his loutish behavior, and that of many of his fellow athletes, is not just the playground of professionals in sports. They happily share this space with politicians, actors and many in our own communities. This, however widespread, does not make it right.
I coach year round. The guiding principles of my coaching are simple: discipline and respect. As one of the gentleman I coach with (a former Marine and a current teammate and friend of mine) will always bark at the kids to start a practice: "Who do you respect". The answer is always the same: "Yourself, your coaches, your teammates and your opponents". There is no middle ground, no gray, no second chances. The dictum is clear. Conduct yourself as a gentleman always, even in the roughest of sports. If you cannot, then be prepared to reap the consequences.
So, as I look at Sal Alosi, punished by only a suspension until the end of the season, which may be approaching sooner than Jets fans would like given their recent run of play, I have to ask: "Why do we tolerate his behavior". Or anyone else's?
Good old Sal's actions bring me back to my youth, as it likely does most of my peers, as I remember one of the greatest college football coaches of his era, Woody Hayes, and the sideline punch that drove him to retirement. Hayes won 3 national championships during his reign at Ohio State (1954, 1957 and 1968). One could argue his coaching tenure ran roughly 10 years too long, but it was the 1978 incident in which Hayes smacked an opposing player in the Gator Bowl that created the necessary crescendo. He was promptly fired.
So, how is it some just unheralded strength and conditioning coach is still employed?
Once again, professional sports manage to set the tone for all that is wrong today, not only in athletics, but in society. A coach, a leader and example to players, let alone the children and fans who watch and play the game, hoping to emulate the passes, catches, runs, tackles and interceptions of their favorite stars, behaves in a manner so devoid of sportsmanship that it leaves one gasping. In this case, Coach Alosi, later claimed in quick response to his diabolical actions that he sought remedy by apologizing to both the wronged player, his coach Rex Ryan and the opposing coach Tony Sporano for "the lapse in judgment". Lapse in judgment? That is the best he could come up with. It was downright dirty. Idiotic. Any number of other adjectives could be applied here. Does an apology cover the act. "Oops, I did something stupid". "Oops I got caught". "Oops I apologized". "All better". Not so fast.
It was also, as I have written before, a sad, sad sign of the times. Where million dollar babies do not have the sense to leave the car at home when drinking (despite their more than enviable salaries and the ability to hire a driver for the evening). Where spoiled stars sit on the bench in petulant displays of dissatisfaction over pay packages that rival the GDP of small countries (and you want to complain about Wall Streeters?). Where gangsters and hoods beat their wives and girlfriends, rack up children out of wedlock like cars in a garage and generally fail to set any sort of example. Then again given millions of dollars and substandard educations, what does one expect.
It was Charles Barkley who said "I am not a role model". Correct. Charles was a heck of a basketball player and a very funny man, at times, but he is anything but a role model. He is at times a lout and a buffoon, and his loutish behavior, and that of many of his fellow athletes, is not just the playground of professionals in sports. They happily share this space with politicians, actors and many in our own communities. This, however widespread, does not make it right.
I coach year round. The guiding principles of my coaching are simple: discipline and respect. As one of the gentleman I coach with (a former Marine and a current teammate and friend of mine) will always bark at the kids to start a practice: "Who do you respect". The answer is always the same: "Yourself, your coaches, your teammates and your opponents". There is no middle ground, no gray, no second chances. The dictum is clear. Conduct yourself as a gentleman always, even in the roughest of sports. If you cannot, then be prepared to reap the consequences.
So, as I look at Sal Alosi, punished by only a suspension until the end of the season, which may be approaching sooner than Jets fans would like given their recent run of play, I have to ask: "Why do we tolerate his behavior". Or anyone else's?
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Banning Irresponsible Journalism
Yesterday morning there was a delightfully irresponsible article on Bloomberg written by one Catherine Dodge (of Bloomberg). The title of her article was: "Banning Big Wall Street Bonuses Favored by 70% of Americans". The article contained no new information in the two year battle between Wall Street, which largely wages a silent war, and politicians, press and activists who wage a very public war for lack of anything else to talk about or as an attempt to divert attention from more pressing matters.
That Ms. Dodge, who writes for Bloomberg would choose, as year end approaches (and the sensitivities to those in the industry around year end exist), to write the article and exacerbate feelings is rather amusing and distressing, as she clearly thinks she is a "political" writer. Her by-line is listed as Washington, as in DC, and she clearly forgets in her writing that she works for a "financial" news and analytics service. Additionally, she seems to have forgotten that she, and many of her colleagues, hang around the "trough of Wall Street" collecting scraps and tidbits that fall from the feed bucket to write their pithy pieces of the excess and greed. She seems to conclude, however clearly myopic, that all who work within proximity of lower Manhattan's most famous street are the likes of Gordon Gekko.
Not only does Ms. Dodge forget who she writes for and about, she has the audacity to cite a poll which gives very little reference to its polling criteria (thus creating the impression of great bias). This poll, conducted reportedly by Bloomberg of 1000 adults nationwide over the age of 18, concluded that 70% of Americans say "big bonuses" should be hit with a 50% tax. Ms. Dodge chose to specifically quote one poll respondent, Michael Robertson of Wayne, Michigan. Who said that "The American people bailed them [Wall Street] out and immediately they paid their employees very large bonuses". He went on to be quoted as saying: "I don't believe they should have a bonus at all for a while". Mr. Robertson unfortunately lost his job as a retail auto parts company. He was also quoted as saying: "Of course I'm bitter about this Wall Street thing". Is he a real source of anything useful here and what is he talking about when he says the Wall Street thing (most of middle America cannot tell you how many continents there are or even what the capital of their very own state is - Lansing, by the way, Mr. Robertson), so what "thing" is he talking about here?
What thing would that be? Would it be the fact that Wall Street, while in a lot of cases not helping its public image, has paid a select few massive, if not ridiculous amounts. If so, score one for Mr. Robertson and middle America (or at least Ms. Dodge's 70% of the 1000 adult Americans she supposedly polled). Would it be the roughly 130,000 financial jobs lost (as cited in an article by the "Financial Times") in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis? A small amount by comparison to overall job losses but no less important to those put out of work. Would it be the fact that most of Wall Street has paid back its tab (associated with the TARP bailout) in full while the feeder business for his auto parts business, OEMs and GM, in particular, still works to pay its tab back? Which of these things was he referencing and was she writing about?
Aside from the fact, as with many "polls", that I have no idea who she polled, her highly factual article forgot to mention such things as the consumer spend and subsequent jobs which the $20.3bn in cash bonuses she cites in her reference to the New York State Controller's office actually provides for. How many downstream retailers and manufacturer, realtors, builders, and other local craftsmen would have little or no work without the monies paid by "evil" Wall Street?
As with much of her article, this was an editorial. An opinion piece with no balance. She danced in seeming delight when talking of Virginia Democratic Senator Jim Webb's proposed legislation to levy a 50% tax on bonuses of more than $400,000 (which fortunately did not pass as many of his colleagues don't want to focus the light of day on their pork barrel benefit "bonuses"). Congress's role in Wall Street's woes is clear. They supported Clinton's move to roll back regulation which had been put in place to avoid much of the excess and issues which created the 2008 crisis (By the way, good job reading the history books, you sanctimonious lot. Go back to discussing things you can comprehend like steroids in baseball and sleeping on Dominican republic lounge chairs).
Ms. Dodge then wrapped her puff piece by quoting yet another member of the general public who complained that while the wicked Wall Street dodged the bullet and then reaped reward, she and other "equal people" were struggling to pay back loans they were given with no one bailing them out. Of course, these " equal people" (equal in what way? Stupidity? Naïveté?) had no idea that they were stretching beyond their means. They have no measure of "right" or "wrong". They live in this country eternally in the belief of entitlement and reward as opposed to hard work and merit. So when the "finance man" came and offered them something too good to be true, well, they had no accountability in the consequences of the fact that it was [too good to be true].
"Yellow Journalism" was a wonderful turn of the century (1900) scheme to get people to pick up specific newspapers in a war for circulation. The phrase itself refers to a term coined by "The New York Press" in 1897 as it related to a battle between media magnates Pulitzer and Hearst in their war to increase circulation. This was not news, but rather incendiary headlining. Opinion largely devoid of fact, but full of vitriol intended to raise ire and divide people, while selling newspapers. It would appear that in this case, Ms. Dodge has researched one thing well, and that is the role of "Yellow Journalism" as applied to modern society (though I thought that was what CNN and Fox News were for). So thanks to her and many others who will come over the next few weeks for allowing this country to duck real issues by focusing on scapegoats while spreading a false flotilla of polling from people largely unqualified to hold an opinion, let alone a job.
That Ms. Dodge, who writes for Bloomberg would choose, as year end approaches (and the sensitivities to those in the industry around year end exist), to write the article and exacerbate feelings is rather amusing and distressing, as she clearly thinks she is a "political" writer. Her by-line is listed as Washington, as in DC, and she clearly forgets in her writing that she works for a "financial" news and analytics service. Additionally, she seems to have forgotten that she, and many of her colleagues, hang around the "trough of Wall Street" collecting scraps and tidbits that fall from the feed bucket to write their pithy pieces of the excess and greed. She seems to conclude, however clearly myopic, that all who work within proximity of lower Manhattan's most famous street are the likes of Gordon Gekko.
Not only does Ms. Dodge forget who she writes for and about, she has the audacity to cite a poll which gives very little reference to its polling criteria (thus creating the impression of great bias). This poll, conducted reportedly by Bloomberg of 1000 adults nationwide over the age of 18, concluded that 70% of Americans say "big bonuses" should be hit with a 50% tax. Ms. Dodge chose to specifically quote one poll respondent, Michael Robertson of Wayne, Michigan. Who said that "The American people bailed them [Wall Street] out and immediately they paid their employees very large bonuses". He went on to be quoted as saying: "I don't believe they should have a bonus at all for a while". Mr. Robertson unfortunately lost his job as a retail auto parts company. He was also quoted as saying: "Of course I'm bitter about this Wall Street thing". Is he a real source of anything useful here and what is he talking about when he says the Wall Street thing (most of middle America cannot tell you how many continents there are or even what the capital of their very own state is - Lansing, by the way, Mr. Robertson), so what "thing" is he talking about here?
What thing would that be? Would it be the fact that Wall Street, while in a lot of cases not helping its public image, has paid a select few massive, if not ridiculous amounts. If so, score one for Mr. Robertson and middle America (or at least Ms. Dodge's 70% of the 1000 adult Americans she supposedly polled). Would it be the roughly 130,000 financial jobs lost (as cited in an article by the "Financial Times") in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis? A small amount by comparison to overall job losses but no less important to those put out of work. Would it be the fact that most of Wall Street has paid back its tab (associated with the TARP bailout) in full while the feeder business for his auto parts business, OEMs and GM, in particular, still works to pay its tab back? Which of these things was he referencing and was she writing about?
Aside from the fact, as with many "polls", that I have no idea who she polled, her highly factual article forgot to mention such things as the consumer spend and subsequent jobs which the $20.3bn in cash bonuses she cites in her reference to the New York State Controller's office actually provides for. How many downstream retailers and manufacturer, realtors, builders, and other local craftsmen would have little or no work without the monies paid by "evil" Wall Street?
As with much of her article, this was an editorial. An opinion piece with no balance. She danced in seeming delight when talking of Virginia Democratic Senator Jim Webb's proposed legislation to levy a 50% tax on bonuses of more than $400,000 (which fortunately did not pass as many of his colleagues don't want to focus the light of day on their pork barrel benefit "bonuses"). Congress's role in Wall Street's woes is clear. They supported Clinton's move to roll back regulation which had been put in place to avoid much of the excess and issues which created the 2008 crisis (By the way, good job reading the history books, you sanctimonious lot. Go back to discussing things you can comprehend like steroids in baseball and sleeping on Dominican republic lounge chairs).
Ms. Dodge then wrapped her puff piece by quoting yet another member of the general public who complained that while the wicked Wall Street dodged the bullet and then reaped reward, she and other "equal people" were struggling to pay back loans they were given with no one bailing them out. Of course, these " equal people" (equal in what way? Stupidity? Naïveté?) had no idea that they were stretching beyond their means. They have no measure of "right" or "wrong". They live in this country eternally in the belief of entitlement and reward as opposed to hard work and merit. So when the "finance man" came and offered them something too good to be true, well, they had no accountability in the consequences of the fact that it was [too good to be true].
"Yellow Journalism" was a wonderful turn of the century (1900) scheme to get people to pick up specific newspapers in a war for circulation. The phrase itself refers to a term coined by "The New York Press" in 1897 as it related to a battle between media magnates Pulitzer and Hearst in their war to increase circulation. This was not news, but rather incendiary headlining. Opinion largely devoid of fact, but full of vitriol intended to raise ire and divide people, while selling newspapers. It would appear that in this case, Ms. Dodge has researched one thing well, and that is the role of "Yellow Journalism" as applied to modern society (though I thought that was what CNN and Fox News were for). So thanks to her and many others who will come over the next few weeks for allowing this country to duck real issues by focusing on scapegoats while spreading a false flotilla of polling from people largely unqualified to hold an opinion, let alone a job.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Vikings - Nordic Nancies
I am a lifelong Minnesota Vikings fan. It has been a miserable experience. I grew up watching, and emulating Fran Tarkenton at quarterback, which I played from about age 6 (Ask my dad, he will tell you that my first pop warner football team was undefeated and unscored upon. I will cringe in the background as recounts the glory of my 6 year old gridiron days. I will giggle though as he recounts the reasons for our success. We ran 3 plays in our complicated "East Coast" offense: halfback sweep right, halfback sweep left and quarterback sneak. Other teams tried to incorporate all sorts of ridiculously complicated X and O plans which were no match for our crew of Italian boys who played defense - I played for the "light blue collar" team of the Greenwich pop warner league.).
In my childhood the Vikings were an easy team to love. They played outdoors at Metropolitan Stadium. They had a defensive front four known as the "Purple People Eaters" and had offensive talent that delighted as well: Chuck Forman, Ahmad Rashad, and Sammy White among others. The teams welcomed sunny clime suckers to the snow covered stadium with temperatures that rarely pierced the positive side of zero once December hit. They were on television breathing the fire of warm air and covered with sweat and snot icicles. They ate their young, and were loved for it. I watched as the ran through snow drifts, plunged across goal lines you could only imagine as they remained covered by the white powder. I marveled at their toughness.
Unfortunately, and despite their tremendous talent, they suffered a number of Super Bowl and Championship game losses during their heyday of outdoor warring (the late 60s and 70s). They could not quite get over that hump, at one point running into one of the greatest teams to ever play under the leadership of Terry Bradshaw and one to be coached by Jon Madden (I married a Broncos fan in 1993 figuring I was safe. They would never win a Superbowl either despite their flirtation with championship crowns…And my choices for betrothal were limited as it was not likely I was ever going to be attracted to, nor would I ever consider, marrying anyone from Buffalo, the only other possible choice when considering football's "always a bridesmaid and never a bride" team allegiance).
So this weekend, when the roof at the Metrodome (the Hubert Humphrey Dome, as it was originally known and named for Lyndon Johnson's former Vice President, for those of you who think he was Target's salesman of the year) collapsed, I was not surprised. It is not the first time. In fact, the frequency of its demise is actually rather amusing. What creative genius thought of building a flat roofed building in a city that averages at least 45.3 inches per year. Not only is it a flat roof but it is made of fiberglass and Teflon and weighs over 500,000 lbs. It must be a real treat to sweep the snow off its roof as one stands 16 stories above the ground at its highest point. Excellent thinking.
Inside this dome shelters what used to be a hearty and bawdy crew of fans: wild, horned-helmet clad warriors of Scandinavian birth. Vikings fans used to bring fear and noise in support of the purple and gold clad marauders. Now they sip chardonnay and marvel at how mediocre the team has become. They point to the freezing cold as their excuse to huddle in cashmere and cotton relative warmth of a climate controlled environment as they clap and ooh and ahh, usually at the Viking's recent ineptness. And, when confronted, those same J Crew models, cum fans, point to the fact that even Minnesota's baseball team, a group of spring and summer "sporters", have moved to a stadium which has a retractable roof (but then we all knew baseball players have long since moved from athlete status to tabloid sideshows who sit out injuries that include things like sprained toes and hurt feelings).
If the Chicago Cubs cannot win a World Series until they reverse the curse of Mrs. O'Leary's cow, then the Vikes had better think long and hard about where they play. There can be no Superbowl win until they move back outside. Maybe the smartest thing to do would get their vaunted architects to build a giant can opener, and just take that lid right off.
In my childhood the Vikings were an easy team to love. They played outdoors at Metropolitan Stadium. They had a defensive front four known as the "Purple People Eaters" and had offensive talent that delighted as well: Chuck Forman, Ahmad Rashad, and Sammy White among others. The teams welcomed sunny clime suckers to the snow covered stadium with temperatures that rarely pierced the positive side of zero once December hit. They were on television breathing the fire of warm air and covered with sweat and snot icicles. They ate their young, and were loved for it. I watched as the ran through snow drifts, plunged across goal lines you could only imagine as they remained covered by the white powder. I marveled at their toughness.
Unfortunately, and despite their tremendous talent, they suffered a number of Super Bowl and Championship game losses during their heyday of outdoor warring (the late 60s and 70s). They could not quite get over that hump, at one point running into one of the greatest teams to ever play under the leadership of Terry Bradshaw and one to be coached by Jon Madden (I married a Broncos fan in 1993 figuring I was safe. They would never win a Superbowl either despite their flirtation with championship crowns…And my choices for betrothal were limited as it was not likely I was ever going to be attracted to, nor would I ever consider, marrying anyone from Buffalo, the only other possible choice when considering football's "always a bridesmaid and never a bride" team allegiance).
So this weekend, when the roof at the Metrodome (the Hubert Humphrey Dome, as it was originally known and named for Lyndon Johnson's former Vice President, for those of you who think he was Target's salesman of the year) collapsed, I was not surprised. It is not the first time. In fact, the frequency of its demise is actually rather amusing. What creative genius thought of building a flat roofed building in a city that averages at least 45.3 inches per year. Not only is it a flat roof but it is made of fiberglass and Teflon and weighs over 500,000 lbs. It must be a real treat to sweep the snow off its roof as one stands 16 stories above the ground at its highest point. Excellent thinking.
Inside this dome shelters what used to be a hearty and bawdy crew of fans: wild, horned-helmet clad warriors of Scandinavian birth. Vikings fans used to bring fear and noise in support of the purple and gold clad marauders. Now they sip chardonnay and marvel at how mediocre the team has become. They point to the freezing cold as their excuse to huddle in cashmere and cotton relative warmth of a climate controlled environment as they clap and ooh and ahh, usually at the Viking's recent ineptness. And, when confronted, those same J Crew models, cum fans, point to the fact that even Minnesota's baseball team, a group of spring and summer "sporters", have moved to a stadium which has a retractable roof (but then we all knew baseball players have long since moved from athlete status to tabloid sideshows who sit out injuries that include things like sprained toes and hurt feelings).
If the Chicago Cubs cannot win a World Series until they reverse the curse of Mrs. O'Leary's cow, then the Vikes had better think long and hard about where they play. There can be no Superbowl win until they move back outside. Maybe the smartest thing to do would get their vaunted architects to build a giant can opener, and just take that lid right off.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Take the Train
U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said that $1.2bn in high speed rail funds originally designated for Wisconsin and Ohio will be redirected to states "eager" to develop faster-rail corridors.
Great job, Ray.
Let's start by asking this question: why do we need high speed rail in either Ohio or Wisconsin? If for no other reason to leave those states as quickly as possible? Was LeBron looking for a fast getaway last summer? Is there really a large contingent of Wisconsin cows, who, having seen the "Happy Cows (of California)" add campaign which are looking to make a break for the better clime and lifestyle? Did we just need another "Black Hole of Calcutta" to flush money down in order to satisfy the union vote in those two left-leaning states? Did the Army run out of $100 hammers that they needed to buy? Did Harry Reid have no other pork barrel legislation he needed to attach? I mean, really.
On the back of what massive commutation needs would it make sense to filter $1.2bn in high speed rail funds to those two states?
Columbus, OH does post as the 16th largest city in The United States and Milwaukee comes in at number 26, but then you have to hold your breath (both literally and figuratively) to number 43 where Cleveland posts, as the next largest city in the two states. Even combining these 3 great metropolises, one only gets a rough population of 1.8mm people (unless you include the metro areas, in which case you get a lot more boarded up and foreclosed properties than you do people). According to the Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics Service there are 1.2mm cows in Wisconsin, giving people a real run for the money. Maybe the money would be better spent on a range of activities for the misguided cheese head youths to ensure the "tipping" phenomenon does not create some sort of bovine backlash (the horror of a milky "Planet of the Apes" being my great concern).
As a native New Englander, who has worked in New York and London and who spends a significant amount of time navigating the areas around Los Angeles and San Francisco (a traffic nightmare for those from such sleepy paces as Racine and Toledo); I truly cannot fathom (well, that's not entirely true given my heartfelt love of our current government) why anyone would consider pouring money into a superfast rail alternative through such desolate states? The Pretenders always sing about "getting back to Ohio" and all I can ever hope is they get there and stop singing about it. An overweight comedian (Drew Carey) made a career out of poking fun at his home city of Cleveland by painting it in such an appallingly bad light that it actually was funny. Anyone who has ever spent the night there knows, having seen the show, the meaning of irony. Cincinnati is just as bad - Kentucky without the bourbon (and the intimate family relations). And, do not forget Ohio's biggest city, Columbus. It ties us right to Wisconsin as its nickname is "Cow town" (I always thought that "Cow town" was Ft Worth, TX, but evidently Columbus claimed it first. Needless to say I'd rather be in Texas). Wisconsin gives us Milwaukee which gets a pass for all the beer; and, in theory, a useful application of rail, keeping us from driving, but probably better applied at normal speed (the cleaning bill for all the drunks on high speed being an issue). Behind Milwaukee, though we drop to Madison, Green Bay and then…Wait for it, Kenosha. Not a lot to work with here.
So, as the learned gentleman from Peoria, Il (Mr. LaHood) now makes his decision, I am forced to ask what is next? A couple billion for a ferry in Nebraska?
Great job, Ray.
Let's start by asking this question: why do we need high speed rail in either Ohio or Wisconsin? If for no other reason to leave those states as quickly as possible? Was LeBron looking for a fast getaway last summer? Is there really a large contingent of Wisconsin cows, who, having seen the "Happy Cows (of California)" add campaign which are looking to make a break for the better clime and lifestyle? Did we just need another "Black Hole of Calcutta" to flush money down in order to satisfy the union vote in those two left-leaning states? Did the Army run out of $100 hammers that they needed to buy? Did Harry Reid have no other pork barrel legislation he needed to attach? I mean, really.
On the back of what massive commutation needs would it make sense to filter $1.2bn in high speed rail funds to those two states?
Columbus, OH does post as the 16th largest city in The United States and Milwaukee comes in at number 26, but then you have to hold your breath (both literally and figuratively) to number 43 where Cleveland posts, as the next largest city in the two states. Even combining these 3 great metropolises, one only gets a rough population of 1.8mm people (unless you include the metro areas, in which case you get a lot more boarded up and foreclosed properties than you do people). According to the Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics Service there are 1.2mm cows in Wisconsin, giving people a real run for the money. Maybe the money would be better spent on a range of activities for the misguided cheese head youths to ensure the "tipping" phenomenon does not create some sort of bovine backlash (the horror of a milky "Planet of the Apes" being my great concern).
As a native New Englander, who has worked in New York and London and who spends a significant amount of time navigating the areas around Los Angeles and San Francisco (a traffic nightmare for those from such sleepy paces as Racine and Toledo); I truly cannot fathom (well, that's not entirely true given my heartfelt love of our current government) why anyone would consider pouring money into a superfast rail alternative through such desolate states? The Pretenders always sing about "getting back to Ohio" and all I can ever hope is they get there and stop singing about it. An overweight comedian (Drew Carey) made a career out of poking fun at his home city of Cleveland by painting it in such an appallingly bad light that it actually was funny. Anyone who has ever spent the night there knows, having seen the show, the meaning of irony. Cincinnati is just as bad - Kentucky without the bourbon (and the intimate family relations). And, do not forget Ohio's biggest city, Columbus. It ties us right to Wisconsin as its nickname is "Cow town" (I always thought that "Cow town" was Ft Worth, TX, but evidently Columbus claimed it first. Needless to say I'd rather be in Texas). Wisconsin gives us Milwaukee which gets a pass for all the beer; and, in theory, a useful application of rail, keeping us from driving, but probably better applied at normal speed (the cleaning bill for all the drunks on high speed being an issue). Behind Milwaukee, though we drop to Madison, Green Bay and then…Wait for it, Kenosha. Not a lot to work with here.
So, as the learned gentleman from Peoria, Il (Mr. LaHood) now makes his decision, I am forced to ask what is next? A couple billion for a ferry in Nebraska?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)