Last April I listed 10 reasons why I hate golf, otherwise known as the favored activity of people who think Mitt Romney is dynamic.
I made no mention of golf's racial divide, but it's worth a shout out in light of recent events:
When people started complaining about the decision to put a noose on the cover of Golfweek, editor Dave Seanor told USA Today, "You don't have many choices. It's Kelly Tilghman's face or a noose." Kelly Tilghman, you'll recall, is the Mensan who suggested on the Golf Channel that one way for younger golfers to beat Tiger Woods would be to "lynch him in a back alley." Seanor said he wanted to "draw attention to an issue we thought deserved some intelligent dialogue."
I'm not calling Seanor or Tilghman a racist -- I don't know them. But how hopelessly out-of-touch can they be? And was there not one person at Golfweek who thought it might be a tad inappropriate to put a noose -- with all the raw symbolism implied -- on its cover?
Again, not necessarily racist, but plenty ignorant, and fairly reflective of golf's boardroom appeal. While some might point out how linksters have embraced Tiger Woods, I'd contend that acceptance has much to do with his bland, corporate demeanor. Imagine the reception he'd get from the likes of Hootie Johnson if he looked and sounded like Allen Iverson?
To be fair, I have friends and family who enjoy golf, and they're neither racists, elitist assholes or Mitt Romney supporters. But if takes broad generalizations to diminish an activity (not a sport) that I can neither master nor tolerate, then so be it.
If Congress is determined to grandstand on this topic again, will they at least avoid the prevailing double standard and require testimony from the likes of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and Players Association chief Gene Upshaw?
Of course not. Air America co-founder Sheldon Drobny makes a ridiculously uninformed argument in favor, predictably assuming the cliche of patronizing white liberal.
There are many cultures in the world that accept and promote cruelty to animals. In some countries of Hispanic origin, bullfighting is promoted as a national sport. And dogs are eaten in some Asian countries. It is my understanding that dog fighting is part of the African-American culture despite the fact that it is a federal crime. That does not make it right, but it does explain in part Vick's participation in this event.
Wrong. It's not a black or white thing -- dogfighting is a rural activity, enjoyed by rednecks (or thugs, take your pick) of both races. And Vick didn't just watch a few dog fights; he participated in the torture and murder of canines.
Vick is no victim. Despite what out-of-town media outlets like ESPN report, Atlanta is not divided by race -- conflicted, perhaps, but no more than anywhere else. Certainly a pocket of bigots exist who will never cotton to the idea of a black quarterback, but overall Vick was treated with kid gloves, by the media and the fans -- even when his performance on the field didn't warrant it. Compare him to model citizen Donovan McNabb, who took his team to a Super Bowl but is regularly excoriated by the Philly faithful.
Mike Vick had it all, and he gave it away. No one took it from him. He's an adult. Who's to say he wasn't the bad influence -- just because he's a sports star, everyone assumes his childhood friends brought him down. Maybe it was the reverse, I don't know.
There's plenty of people to feel sorry for -- plenty of poor black people who never got the opportunities that Michael Vick received. His plight is a sad one, but I'll let the starfuckers waste their pity on Vick.
Ever notice how no one really apologizes anymore? Especially if they're a public figure.
While it might be a stretch to call a soccer player a public figure, U.S. goalie Hope Solo is the latest to play the "taken out of context" card. She must've been following the O'Reilly saga.
Solo threw her teammate under a convoy of Mack Trucks after being replaced as the starter. Now she says her comments were misunderstood.
"There's no doubt in my mind I would have made those saves," Solo said. "You have to live in the present. And you can't live by big names. You can't live in the past."
Apparently there's different ways to read those remarks:
"Although I stand strong in everything I said, the true disheartening moment for me was realizing it could look as though I was taking a direct shot at my own teammate," Solo said, according to the Web site. "I would never throw such a low blow. Never."
"I only wanted to speak of my own abilities yet also recognize that the past is the past. Things were taken out of context, or analyzed differently from my true meaning of my own words," she said, according to the Web site.
Don't take this out of context, but Solo is unquestionably the week's biggest twat.
Premeditated felonies are not mistakes. Yes, everyone makes miscues, but not everyone commits heinous crimes. And Mike, when you make a public apology, try not to use the third person. In fact, I'd retire that altogether, unless you plan to use the description "Prisoner #???" in the third.
Not sure if commenter Haseem Jones is for real, but he forwards an argument that has been made by Vick apologists such as Falcons WR Joe Horn and a prominent NAACP executive:
Have you ever swatted a fly? Set a mouse trap? Slapped a mosquito that was sucking your blood? Squished an ant?
How about eaten a hamburger, or chicken, or fish, or a ham sandwich or lamb chop or Canadian bacon pizza?
If you answered yes to any of those questions, you're just as bad as Michael Vick. Dude fought some dogs. Hung a couple, electrocuted and drowned household pets. Big deal. You've killed animals too. So what's the difference?
Oh, the media says it's so bad. You don't see the media saying it's so bad to go around killing deers, or possums or cows or chicken or pigs or sheep or mice or squirrels. An animal's an animal.
Michael Wilbon delivers the best postmortem I've read of the Michael Vick case:
You wonder if the people who unabashedly apologize for Michael Vick, particularly in and around Atlanta, will see Vick for what he is, for what he's been, or whether they'll continue to give him the kind of cover that allows his brand of arrogance to thrive. You wonder how many of them will come to the conclusion most of us have, that if Vick really did what his co-conspirators said and drowned dogs after trying unsuccessfully to hang them, he's pretty much scum-of-the-earth material.
Apparently, local sports yakkers The 2 Live Stews didn't read Wilbon's column; they say the intense media scrutiny forced Vick's hand, leading to the plea bargain.
I know, for instance, the AJC had no more than five reporters working the Vick story, and that's only on days when major news broke. There's no other newspaper in town, and four Chamber of Commerce-friendly local newscasts. How would Vick have fared in New York, Boston or Chicago, with triple the coverage?
And who, beyond a small pocket of bigots, wanted to see Vick taken down, as the Stews alleged?
Finally, our prayers done been answered -- we got Joey Harrington in the huddle!