Gregg Easterbrook: idiot
TMQ thinks that Peyton Manning does too many commercials, and this may prevent him from winning a Super Bowl. He should focus exclusively on football, TMQ says.
This is remarkably dumb. Manning works harder than perhaps any NFL player at studying film, understanding the nuances of the game, and trying to improve his own game. The suggestion that he isn't devoting enough time and attention to football is laughable. People have time for lives outside of their livelihoods. If Manning did no commercials, would he then spend that non-endorsement time studying football? Lifting weights? Perhaps he would devote the time to some non-football hobby. Devoting time to a non-football hobby (stamp collecting? water color painting? reading Neo-classical poetry? who knows) could take just as much time away from football as shilling, but of course, that would go unnoticed.
Some people complained that when Jesse Palmer did "The Bachelor" that he should have been devoting more time to football. That's silly. I assume players take off-season vacations. Many of them have families. They do all sorts of non-football activities that don't really get criticized because they don't get publicized (exceptions include trying to play another sport or riding a motorcycle, activities that potentially affect performance).
TMQ comes up with this bit of genius: "Manning films most commercials during the offseason, but even film work "in the can" generates distractions during money time. Colts' players snap on the television, they see Peyton hawking Gatorade, it's not conducive to concentration or team harmony." Do I even need to point out the idiocy of this? If a single Colt player is unable to properly work out, practice, or execute a play because Manning is shilling, that player sucks in the brain. I'm willing to guess Colt players are more likely to get distracted by all sorts of non-Manning things in their lives (like, for Nick Harper, getting stabbed).
This bit of moronical commentary earns TMQ a label as media idiot.
Dan LeBatard: Smartie
In his interview with The Big Lead, here's what Dan LeBatard said about the idea of a "double standard":
And I’m just as tired of hearing white people bitch about the double standard here as white people are of hearing cries of racism. Yes, black people can say things white people can’t. But Jimmy The Greek and Al Campanis don’t make up for slavery, OK? They don’t make up for the fact that just about every person in a position of power in sports is white and hiring other white people. They don’t make up for the fact that 6 of 1 million college-football coaches are black because all the people in power and making the decisions are white and they tend to hire other white people because if you looked around the room at their parties and galas and weddings, all you would see is white people. This isn’t racism. Its human nature. We gravitate toward those with similar interests, experiences, etc. But black people are in an unequal position because of it. So, yes, there’s a double standard. Black people can say things that white people can’t. But I’m OK with that double standard given what has to be endured to arrive at it.
Now here's what I wrote last month about a double standard:
Here's why it's silly to complain about a "double standard" that supposedly benefits black people. In America's history, there has always been a double standard, and that double standard has overwhelmingly been to the advantage of white people. If you even want to argue with this point, you have a terrible grasp of American history. What happened to the Native Americans? What was slavery? What happened after slavery was abolished? What was the experience of Asian Americans in America? How long ago was the Civil Rights movement? Who holds most of the positions of power and prestige in America? It's quite obvious that there has always been a double standard that has favored white people. And if that means that people like Charles Barkley and Michael Irvin can now say things that would get white people in trouble, so be it.
Since Dan LeBatard says something on this topic similar to what I say, he earns the label media smartie.
Patrick Reusse: idiot
I've contended, with evidence, that Patrick Reusse likes to make fun of Viking fans. Well, this weekend Reusse wrote a column titled "Viking diehards need to look in mirror." In it, he blames Viking fans for having high expectations for the team year after year, then looking for somebody to blame when those expectations are not met. Perhaps we should thank a paid newspaper columnist for telling us all to settle down. After all, Reusse is where Viking fans look for self-improvement--if we listened to Reusse, we wouldn't be "such saps." But I wonder, would it be out of line to ask a paid newspaper columnist to provide us some sort of insight into the events on the field? Is making fun of the Vikings and their fans really enough to earn a paycheck from the Strib? I've yet to see Reusse bring a real piece of football insight, but he does a wonderful job making fun of us.
So Patrick Reusse, in his continuing condescension of Viking fans, gets the label media idiot.