I’m not going to defend my attitude toward the South any further, but I would like to, briefly, present a partial explanation of my worldview that may help to clarify my attitudes.
First of all, I stand by my assertion that all human beings have stereotypes and assumptions about any number of things. In educational theory, these are called “schemas” and they are essential for helping us make sense of the world. These schemas are only dangerous stereotypes if we generalize them. Generalization can take the form of two logical fallacies: composition (some parts have a particular quality so the whole is said to have the quality) or division (the whole has the quality so individuals or specific parts are said to have the quality). If you can find that I’ve engaged in either of these fallacies, I welcome getting called on it. I recognize that any time you generalize, you are going to be wrong. I recognize I've made statements that appear to generalize, and for that, I'm mistaken and apologize.
I am, you could say, a “radical subjectivist”: I believe truth is only understood subjectively by groups and individuals, that human beings have little ability to grasp objective truth in this lifetime, and that the best way we can come to truth is recognize the subjectivity of our own views. In all things one should be aware that one’s viewpoints, positions, assumptions, or opinions ARE viewpoints, positions, assumptions, or opinions. As I’ve said, I’m willing to discuss, argue, or accept nearly any position AS LONG AS it is accepted as a position and not a claim to "the truth." So you will find me much more open to discussing and analyzing my own biases than most. If you would like to discuss these biases and argue against them, I’m willing to engage in dialogue. If you’d like to discuss this worldview of subjectivism, I’m willing to discuss that, too. But if you’re going to call me a bigot or an ignorant douchebag because of these biases when I have not engaged in either the fallacy of division or composition (I hope nobody has taken me saying "the South" to mean "all southerners" any more than saying "America" means "all Americans"), I now simply say, you’re wrong.
By the way, you might be interested to know that the person who initially called me on "southern bashing" was...wait for it... MY WIFE.
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Friday, December 01, 2006
On second thought
When this first started, I could have said, "Yep. I hate the South" followed by several jokes involving common southern stereotypes. Then you could have either taken it for a joke, or taken me for an asshole (probably both). Either way, it wouldn't be any worse than what appears on some blogs, and the issue would be dropped.
Or I could have said, "Whoops, sorry to offend, I didn't mean to hurt" and that would have been it.
Instead, I did what I normally do: I engaged in dialogue. I made explanations, responded to objections, and asked questions. Why I thought dialogue was a good way to respond to being called an ignorant douchebag, I don't know.
Now I say, screw that. If you don't like what I say, go ahead and think I'm a jerk.
When southern states stop using the Confederate flag for official things (like placement at statehouse grounds, appearance on state flags, appearance on licence plates), I'll consider giving up my biases about the South. Not a second before.
Next week, back to focusing on football.
Or I could have said, "Whoops, sorry to offend, I didn't mean to hurt" and that would have been it.
Instead, I did what I normally do: I engaged in dialogue. I made explanations, responded to objections, and asked questions. Why I thought dialogue was a good way to respond to being called an ignorant douchebag, I don't know.
Now I say, screw that. If you don't like what I say, go ahead and think I'm a jerk.
When southern states stop using the Confederate flag for official things (like placement at statehouse grounds, appearance on state flags, appearance on licence plates), I'll consider giving up my biases about the South. Not a second before.
Next week, back to focusing on football.
Am I a bigot?
Because I'm rather shaken up about this subject, I'm writing another post to give it prominence at the top of the blog for the weekend. I've attempted to explain my values difference and ideas about "southern values" here, but I'm afraid I've done a woeful job at it. My ideas, however, are not made up or based on stereotypes. I'm basing this on the data I've been presented with. I'm basing it on news stories I've encountered and my own research and experience.
Let me finish by making a point I suggested in the comments below.
Trent Lott said that the country wouldn't have the problems it has if we would have elected Strom Thurmond, a segregationist presidential candidate, to the White House. In November, 64% of Mississippi voters elected Lott back to the Senate. Now--are my ideas about the South based on irrational bigotry? Or are my ideas based on the evidence that I see?
Let me finish by making a point I suggested in the comments below.
Trent Lott said that the country wouldn't have the problems it has if we would have elected Strom Thurmond, a segregationist presidential candidate, to the White House. In November, 64% of Mississippi voters elected Lott back to the Senate. Now--are my ideas about the South based on irrational bigotry? Or are my ideas based on the evidence that I see?
Vikings-Bears Preview
We all know that Chicago is a tough-guy town. We also know that for at least since 2001, the Vikings haven't been a tough-guy team, because they haven't won a game at Soldier Field since Robert Smith was a Viking.
Bleh. The freakin' Bears in their freakin' navy and orange have won too many freakin' games in a row against the Vikes at home.
But the Vikes are now built to be a tough-guy team. Pat Williams may or may not play against the Bears, but that may or may not matter. The Vikes are built to run the ball and stop the run, something they weren't at all capable of doing against the Bears the last five years.
They can win in the cold. And they will win in the cold.
The Bears' defense is susceptible to the run. Chester Taylor should get 25-30 carries and get productive yardage out of that. The Vikes will throw rinky dink passes and punt a lot. The Bears will try to run the ball and fail, then Rex Grossman will try to chuck the ball deep and end up hitting Darren Sharper and Dwight Smith, the safeties that he'll assume aren't there. The Vikes will get the turnovers and the Bears won't and the Vikes will win 17-13. They'll be .500 and we'll all sing "skol" and dream about the playoffs.
I hope Steve Hutchinson buries Brian Urlacher over and over again as Chester Taylor runs over him. I hope Rex Grossman throws interception after interception while Lovie stands on the sidelines and smirks.
The Vikes can win. the Vikes will win. Screw you, Mike Ditka. Screw you, hard.
Bleh. The freakin' Bears in their freakin' navy and orange have won too many freakin' games in a row against the Vikes at home.
But the Vikes are now built to be a tough-guy team. Pat Williams may or may not play against the Bears, but that may or may not matter. The Vikes are built to run the ball and stop the run, something they weren't at all capable of doing against the Bears the last five years.
They can win in the cold. And they will win in the cold.
The Bears' defense is susceptible to the run. Chester Taylor should get 25-30 carries and get productive yardage out of that. The Vikes will throw rinky dink passes and punt a lot. The Bears will try to run the ball and fail, then Rex Grossman will try to chuck the ball deep and end up hitting Darren Sharper and Dwight Smith, the safeties that he'll assume aren't there. The Vikes will get the turnovers and the Bears won't and the Vikes will win 17-13. They'll be .500 and we'll all sing "skol" and dream about the playoffs.
I hope Steve Hutchinson buries Brian Urlacher over and over again as Chester Taylor runs over him. I hope Rex Grossman throws interception after interception while Lovie stands on the sidelines and smirks.
The Vikes can win. the Vikes will win. Screw you, Mike Ditka. Screw you, hard.
New at PV: all we do is discuss racially-charged comments
OK, that's not true. But given that I've written 5 posts about Michael Irvin, commented on Michael Richards, and have been called bigoted toward southerners, I should mention Larry Johnson's remarks.
You can read about what Johnson said at PFT. Johnson implies that he has a tougher time relating to white coaches than to black coaches. Here is where I can say that a disturbing double-standard exists. If a white player said he had trouble relating to a black coach BECAUSE he was black, he would be lampooned as a racist.
But guess what? So far, Larry Johnson seems to be getting lampooned as a racist. Since Johnson is paid for his athletic abilities and not his words and ideas, there is nobody calling for firing or suspension. But I've been hearing criticism of Johnson. Flipping around the radio dial this morning, I heard one group (I think it was a FOX radio team) really laying into Johnson for it, and most callers were also laying into him for it. As Jason Whitlock describes it, Johnson's comments received immmediate criticism from Bob Costas and Dan Marino.
Pro Football Talk writes,
"We suppose it's just another situation in which racial biases and preferences are prohibited when demonstrated by members of the "majority" race and accepted when stated by members of the "minority.""
Such biases and preferences are not prohibited for anybody (though there are usually consequences for expressing them), and they are not being accepted right now when stated by a member of the minority. Johnson is getting criticized for what he said.
I'm willing to accept PFT's next statement, to a point:
"But if we're striving as a society for equality, doesn't a double-standard regarding acceptable words and beliefs provide an inherent impediment to that goal?
If and when this society is ever to be truly equal, there will be true equality -- both as to the perks, and as to the punishments."
I agree. But in striving for a society of equality, we need to have freedom to discuss issues of inequality. I believe that for that discussion to be open, members of the minority may need more freedom to discuss issues of inequality than members of the majority. Open expression and discussion of ideas is the best way to improve anything. If Johnson honestly feels this way, he should express that so that we can actually discuss and adress what people feel. And if you want to criticize Johnson for the ideas he expresses, you are completely free to do so and it appears that many people are.
You can read about what Johnson said at PFT. Johnson implies that he has a tougher time relating to white coaches than to black coaches. Here is where I can say that a disturbing double-standard exists. If a white player said he had trouble relating to a black coach BECAUSE he was black, he would be lampooned as a racist.
But guess what? So far, Larry Johnson seems to be getting lampooned as a racist. Since Johnson is paid for his athletic abilities and not his words and ideas, there is nobody calling for firing or suspension. But I've been hearing criticism of Johnson. Flipping around the radio dial this morning, I heard one group (I think it was a FOX radio team) really laying into Johnson for it, and most callers were also laying into him for it. As Jason Whitlock describes it, Johnson's comments received immmediate criticism from Bob Costas and Dan Marino.
Pro Football Talk writes,
"We suppose it's just another situation in which racial biases and preferences are prohibited when demonstrated by members of the "majority" race and accepted when stated by members of the "minority.""
Such biases and preferences are not prohibited for anybody (though there are usually consequences for expressing them), and they are not being accepted right now when stated by a member of the minority. Johnson is getting criticized for what he said.
I'm willing to accept PFT's next statement, to a point:
"But if we're striving as a society for equality, doesn't a double-standard regarding acceptable words and beliefs provide an inherent impediment to that goal?
If and when this society is ever to be truly equal, there will be true equality -- both as to the perks, and as to the punishments."
I agree. But in striving for a society of equality, we need to have freedom to discuss issues of inequality. I believe that for that discussion to be open, members of the minority may need more freedom to discuss issues of inequality than members of the majority. Open expression and discussion of ideas is the best way to improve anything. If Johnson honestly feels this way, he should express that so that we can actually discuss and adress what people feel. And if you want to criticize Johnson for the ideas he expresses, you are completely free to do so and it appears that many people are.
National Friday League, week thirteen
Defending my view of "The South"
Let me explain my position on "the South." I am not bigoted against southerners; in the statement that gave offense, I said "some racist southerners," which was in no way intended to imply that I think all southerners are racist (the adjectives "some" and "racist" make clear I am referring to a subset of southerners), though certainly the statement reveals a bias I have about the South.
Now, unless you're a judge or a journalist, bias is not a dirty word; we all have biases, and that's OK.
I have a difference in values from what is generally associated with "Southern values." Having a value system and thinking negatively about another value system is not bigoted. If it is, every thinking human being is bigoted, since every thinking human being has opinions (or, if you prefer, biases) about particular values. We don't all share the same values. I don't need to get into the specifics about what I mean by "Southern values" or what it is that I dislike or disagree with. Let it be enough to say that I have a values difference (if anybody actually wants to know about these values differences, I'd consider writing it on another blog and linking to it here).
Do I have negative assumptions about "the South"? Absolutely. But I am self-aware and honest, and I admit that these are biased assumptions, not objective truth. Having awareness of our biases is a much better approach than pretending we have no biases. Do my biases about Southern values mean that I hate all southerners? Of course not. I try as hard as anybody to be tolerant, to be nonjudgmental, and to assess individuals as individuals. If I'm a generally misanthropic person, that has nothing to do with the particulars of the people. In general, the only thing I have intolerance for is intolerance.
If you still think I'm a douche, fine. I probably am. I resent being called bigoted, but I recognize the statement I made showed my biases. I don't care if I offended anybody and I don't feel the need to be objective on my BLOG.
Why did the Lions sign Josh McCown?
I have no idea. They signed Jon Kitna and made him the starter, and they signed McCown and made him the backup. Was McCown worth it? Did they have the idea that he would ever be the starter? And now, when their 2006 season is clearly going nowhere and they must know Kitna is not their QB of the future, why aren't they playing McCown to see what he can do? Peter King thinks the Lions should have drafted Matt Leinart last year, and thinks they should draft Brady Quinn for next year. Is Josh McCown even a real person, or did I imagine one of the worst moments of my football fan life (Viking fans, you know what I'm talking about)?
Pat Williams is doubtful, and so are my chances for a happy Sunday
"What was that bang?" should have a good game preview; he hates the Bears more than I do so I'll leave the vitriol to him. But I'm worried that Pat Williams is doubtful. Williams is the most important player on the defense; he's the reason they have an historically good run defense. Without him, the Bears might not become one-dimensional, and Sexy Rexy might not throw to Darren Sharper, Dwight Smith, Fred Smoot, Antoine Winfield, and Cedric Griffin. I am sad about this. I will do my best to enjoy Friday and Saturday (read: gin) because Sunday might be a rather unhappy day.
The Bengals, eh?
I didn't really have faith in Cincinnati going into the season. I usually have high regard for teams that feature toughness and defense, and that didn't seem to be Cincinnati. I didn't know how Carson Palmer would return, and given that they've had one successful season in...well, in a long damn time...I didn't really know whether they could follow up an 11-5 year with another playoff year. Now they're 7-5, still two games behind 9-3 Baltimore in the AFC North, but with a legitimate shot to win out. And we all know what can happen to teams that finish the year playing their best football. I'd like to see the Bengals playing some games in January.
Enjoy the weekend, everybody. Except Packer and Bear fans.
Let me explain my position on "the South." I am not bigoted against southerners; in the statement that gave offense, I said "some racist southerners," which was in no way intended to imply that I think all southerners are racist (the adjectives "some" and "racist" make clear I am referring to a subset of southerners), though certainly the statement reveals a bias I have about the South.
Now, unless you're a judge or a journalist, bias is not a dirty word; we all have biases, and that's OK.
I have a difference in values from what is generally associated with "Southern values." Having a value system and thinking negatively about another value system is not bigoted. If it is, every thinking human being is bigoted, since every thinking human being has opinions (or, if you prefer, biases) about particular values. We don't all share the same values. I don't need to get into the specifics about what I mean by "Southern values" or what it is that I dislike or disagree with. Let it be enough to say that I have a values difference (if anybody actually wants to know about these values differences, I'd consider writing it on another blog and linking to it here).
Do I have negative assumptions about "the South"? Absolutely. But I am self-aware and honest, and I admit that these are biased assumptions, not objective truth. Having awareness of our biases is a much better approach than pretending we have no biases. Do my biases about Southern values mean that I hate all southerners? Of course not. I try as hard as anybody to be tolerant, to be nonjudgmental, and to assess individuals as individuals. If I'm a generally misanthropic person, that has nothing to do with the particulars of the people. In general, the only thing I have intolerance for is intolerance.
If you still think I'm a douche, fine. I probably am. I resent being called bigoted, but I recognize the statement I made showed my biases. I don't care if I offended anybody and I don't feel the need to be objective on my BLOG.
Why did the Lions sign Josh McCown?
I have no idea. They signed Jon Kitna and made him the starter, and they signed McCown and made him the backup. Was McCown worth it? Did they have the idea that he would ever be the starter? And now, when their 2006 season is clearly going nowhere and they must know Kitna is not their QB of the future, why aren't they playing McCown to see what he can do? Peter King thinks the Lions should have drafted Matt Leinart last year, and thinks they should draft Brady Quinn for next year. Is Josh McCown even a real person, or did I imagine one of the worst moments of my football fan life (Viking fans, you know what I'm talking about)?
Pat Williams is doubtful, and so are my chances for a happy Sunday
"What was that bang?" should have a good game preview; he hates the Bears more than I do so I'll leave the vitriol to him. But I'm worried that Pat Williams is doubtful. Williams is the most important player on the defense; he's the reason they have an historically good run defense. Without him, the Bears might not become one-dimensional, and Sexy Rexy might not throw to Darren Sharper, Dwight Smith, Fred Smoot, Antoine Winfield, and Cedric Griffin. I am sad about this. I will do my best to enjoy Friday and Saturday (read: gin) because Sunday might be a rather unhappy day.
The Bengals, eh?
I didn't really have faith in Cincinnati going into the season. I usually have high regard for teams that feature toughness and defense, and that didn't seem to be Cincinnati. I didn't know how Carson Palmer would return, and given that they've had one successful season in...well, in a long damn time...I didn't really know whether they could follow up an 11-5 year with another playoff year. Now they're 7-5, still two games behind 9-3 Baltimore in the AFC North, but with a legitimate shot to win out. And we all know what can happen to teams that finish the year playing their best football. I'd like to see the Bengals playing some games in January.
Enjoy the weekend, everybody. Except Packer and Bear fans.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Top Ten Reasons to Hate the South
Ha! I'm just kidding. I'm not here to fan the flames of hatred. Let me tell you, it's absolutely delightful to watch the peaceful norseman himself offending all southerners. You think he's biased here, get a little gin and tonic in him.
It's also great to see him continuing to defend Michael Irvin. PV, buddy, he retired like ten years ago, and he's way too big a jerk for the sportswriters to elect him to the Hall. Give it up already, you don't have to keep defending him. Just admit it: he always pushed off.
Check out tomorrow, when I'll give my game preview of the Vikings' trip to Tough-Guy Town.
It's also great to see him continuing to defend Michael Irvin. PV, buddy, he retired like ten years ago, and he's way too big a jerk for the sportswriters to elect him to the Hall. Give it up already, you don't have to keep defending him. Just admit it: he always pushed off.
Check out tomorrow, when I'll give my game preview of the Vikings' trip to Tough-Guy Town.
"Sound and fury, signifying nothing"
I've realized now that the Michael Irvin's comments story is not a story in and of itself. It is a story-driven story.
Why do I say this?
Because it's about offensive comments that in truth offended nobody.
I want you to look sincerely into your mind and ask two questions:
1. Were you personally offended or insulted by Irvin's comments?
2. To what extent was your self-esteem damaged by Irvin's comments?
If you answered "yes" to the first question and anything significant to the second question, get ready to be offended again: you're an idiot. Seriously, I don't think a single person listening to Irvin's comments on Dan Patrick's show was personally offended or had his/her self-esteem damaged in any way. It's only a story to the extent that anybody is making it a story.
When Rush Limbaugh suggested that Donovan McNabb was overrated because he was black, he actually did offend people. He suggested a black player wasn't good enough on his own merit, and that the media was propping him up as better than he was because he was black. It is reasonable to be offended by such a statement. What he said could have hurt the self-esteem of aspiring black quarterbacks. Now, I'm a firm advocate of free speech--Limbaugh has every right to make those comments (though he doesn't have a "right" to make them on any particular network). But his comments did actually, sincerely, and personally offend people.
Irvin's did not. If you were personally offended by Irvin's comments, I don't know what to say to you. It probably means you are frequently offended for all sorts of meaningless things and you are a very unhappy person. What he said was not offensive enough to deserve outrage from anybody. He made a (bad) joke that used (widely held) stereotypes about athleticism and race. That's it.
Make no mistake about it--I think Irvin is a lousy commentator. But any outrage over his comments on race, athleticism, and Tony Romo is severely misplaced.
Why do I say this?
Because it's about offensive comments that in truth offended nobody.
I want you to look sincerely into your mind and ask two questions:
1. Were you personally offended or insulted by Irvin's comments?
2. To what extent was your self-esteem damaged by Irvin's comments?
If you answered "yes" to the first question and anything significant to the second question, get ready to be offended again: you're an idiot. Seriously, I don't think a single person listening to Irvin's comments on Dan Patrick's show was personally offended or had his/her self-esteem damaged in any way. It's only a story to the extent that anybody is making it a story.
When Rush Limbaugh suggested that Donovan McNabb was overrated because he was black, he actually did offend people. He suggested a black player wasn't good enough on his own merit, and that the media was propping him up as better than he was because he was black. It is reasonable to be offended by such a statement. What he said could have hurt the self-esteem of aspiring black quarterbacks. Now, I'm a firm advocate of free speech--Limbaugh has every right to make those comments (though he doesn't have a "right" to make them on any particular network). But his comments did actually, sincerely, and personally offend people.
Irvin's did not. If you were personally offended by Irvin's comments, I don't know what to say to you. It probably means you are frequently offended for all sorts of meaningless things and you are a very unhappy person. What he said was not offensive enough to deserve outrage from anybody. He made a (bad) joke that used (widely held) stereotypes about athleticism and race. That's it.
Make no mistake about it--I think Irvin is a lousy commentator. But any outrage over his comments on race, athleticism, and Tony Romo is severely misplaced.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
More dopes on Michael Irvin
You can read my initial thoughts on Micheal Irvin's bizaare commments here, and my follow-up comments here and here. You can also read some interesting takes at Leave the Man Alone here and here.
First of all, I want to emphasize a few points that I've noted before.
1. Explicit comments that make note of racial stereotypes and assumptions get attacked when implicit comments are more prevalent, more damaging, and largely ignored from discourse. Take note whenever a white wide receiver is referred to as "deceptively fast" or having "deceptive speed," and tell me there aren't all sorts of implicit assumptions about race and athleticism.
2. White people complaining about a "double standard" that benefits minorities is the height reactionary, ridiculous hypocricy. There is still all sorts of institutional and individual racism in America, but we're supposed to be uptight because members of minorities get away with saying things that members of the majority can't?
PFT has some new stuff on Irvin's comments, and as usual, there are some dopey comments. There are links to columns by Nancy Gay, Marc Narducci, and Scott Bordow about the incident.
Narducci is sort of stupid. He says, "Those who ever get in front of a microphone should be smart enough to stay away from racial stereotyping, even if something is said supposedly in jest."
OK, tell that to every standup comedian. Have you people seen The Aristocrats? How about Chappelle's Show? Sometimes joking about an issue is a good way to actually deal with an issue.
Narducci goes on, "Whether the person thinks he or she is being funny isn't the point. Race is a serious subject and no matter how lighthearted a remark, it is bound to offend a certain segment of viewers or listeners."
In America, we don't have the right to not be offended. I'm sure there are some racist southerners who are "offended" that a black man is even allowed to speak on TV. Do you care about offending such people? Me neither. If commentators are going to worry about offending "a certain segment of viewers or listeners," we're not left with much of anything.
Narducci says, "While anybody can make a mistake, this lapse of judgment would be serious enough to warrant at the least a suspension and at the most dismissal, especially in these politically correct times."
"Political correctness" is a stupid concept. It's lame, hypocritical, and rarely used for things that are truly regulated by political correctness (you want real political correctness? Try saying something bad about U.S. soldiers. It's "politically incorrect" to do so, but nobody refers to that as political correctness). There's some possible circular logic here, but possibly not, so I won't dissect that.
Bordow says that "The same standard should be used for the black commentator as the white commentator." Maybe. But when the same standards are used for judgment and treatment of black people in America as for white people, I'll start complaining that a black commentator gets less punishment for racially awkward comments than a white commentator gets.
My interest in this issue is the reaction. I'm interested in issues like use of language, free speech, and racial equality, and I've found this a story that features all of that.
I don't think Micheal Irvin's comments about Tony Romo are the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh's comments about Donovan McNabb. In the former case, a member of the minority made a joke using stereotypes of the majority and the minority. In the latter case, a member of the majority suggested that a member of the minority is overrated BECAUSE he's a member of the minority. That's not the same thing, even though some sportswriters are reacting as if it is.
First of all, I want to emphasize a few points that I've noted before.
1. Explicit comments that make note of racial stereotypes and assumptions get attacked when implicit comments are more prevalent, more damaging, and largely ignored from discourse. Take note whenever a white wide receiver is referred to as "deceptively fast" or having "deceptive speed," and tell me there aren't all sorts of implicit assumptions about race and athleticism.
2. White people complaining about a "double standard" that benefits minorities is the height reactionary, ridiculous hypocricy. There is still all sorts of institutional and individual racism in America, but we're supposed to be uptight because members of minorities get away with saying things that members of the majority can't?
PFT has some new stuff on Irvin's comments, and as usual, there are some dopey comments. There are links to columns by Nancy Gay, Marc Narducci, and Scott Bordow about the incident.
Narducci is sort of stupid. He says, "Those who ever get in front of a microphone should be smart enough to stay away from racial stereotyping, even if something is said supposedly in jest."
OK, tell that to every standup comedian. Have you people seen The Aristocrats? How about Chappelle's Show? Sometimes joking about an issue is a good way to actually deal with an issue.
Narducci goes on, "Whether the person thinks he or she is being funny isn't the point. Race is a serious subject and no matter how lighthearted a remark, it is bound to offend a certain segment of viewers or listeners."
In America, we don't have the right to not be offended. I'm sure there are some racist southerners who are "offended" that a black man is even allowed to speak on TV. Do you care about offending such people? Me neither. If commentators are going to worry about offending "a certain segment of viewers or listeners," we're not left with much of anything.
Narducci says, "While anybody can make a mistake, this lapse of judgment would be serious enough to warrant at the least a suspension and at the most dismissal, especially in these politically correct times."
"Political correctness" is a stupid concept. It's lame, hypocritical, and rarely used for things that are truly regulated by political correctness (you want real political correctness? Try saying something bad about U.S. soldiers. It's "politically incorrect" to do so, but nobody refers to that as political correctness). There's some possible circular logic here, but possibly not, so I won't dissect that.
Bordow says that "The same standard should be used for the black commentator as the white commentator." Maybe. But when the same standards are used for judgment and treatment of black people in America as for white people, I'll start complaining that a black commentator gets less punishment for racially awkward comments than a white commentator gets.
My interest in this issue is the reaction. I'm interested in issues like use of language, free speech, and racial equality, and I've found this a story that features all of that.
I don't think Micheal Irvin's comments about Tony Romo are the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh's comments about Donovan McNabb. In the former case, a member of the minority made a joke using stereotypes of the majority and the minority. In the latter case, a member of the majority suggested that a member of the minority is overrated BECAUSE he's a member of the minority. That's not the same thing, even though some sportswriters are reacting as if it is.
Bear Week.
The Vikings go play at Soldier Field this Sunday, and there are a few things we can't forget.
First of all, Chicago is a Tough-Guy Town. Second of all, Chicago is a Tough-Guy Town.
When the Vikings and Bears play, it's a street fight. And if you're going to have a street fight, you better start getting ready now.
And finally, Chicago is a Tough-Guy Town.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Randomly looking it all over
Looking at the current NFL standings is almost enough to help us make predictions about what will happen the rest of the way.
Points Against
Who cares about yards? Points allowed is the key to a defense. Three teams are very similar in their defensive production: the Patriots (144), the Ravens (147), and the Bears (137). Given that these three teams are also doing competently on offense, and each is traditionally known to have effective special teams, I would say your Super Bowl favorites are right there.
9-7 should get you in the playoffs in the NFC
The Daily Norseman has a nice listing of the current rankings to supplement NFL.com's current standings. As you can see, there are four division leaders, and 7 teams with 5-6 wins fighting for the last two playoff spots.
The Ragnorak has been charting this pretty well. A lot of these 5-6 win teams still have matchups with each other, so things are in the teams' control. This is good news for the Vikes: they have a chance to score an upset against the Bears this week, and their remaining four games (home for Rams and Jets, away for Lions and Packers) are winnable games. Or loseable.
But I don't see Dallas, Chicago, or Seattle losing their divisions. Carolina could knock of New Orleans (Panthers are a game behind, play the Saints one more time, and have already beaten them once).
Clearly, though, the NFC standings are a mess and one or two of these 5-6 win teams have to start playing their best football of the year starting in week 13. But some team that looks mediocre half-way through always ends up playing its best football late: Pittsburgh even rode their late run to a championship last year.
The AFC playoffs are going to be intensely fun
Currently the Patriots are 8-3, the Ravens are 9-2, the Colts are 10-1, and the Chargers are 9-2. Absolutely any matchups between any of these four teams in the playoffs should be spectacular fun to watch. Which of the four will get homefield advantage? If I were a betting man, and I am aware that I am not, I would pick Indianapolis and Baltimore.
The Jets, Bengals, and Jaguars each have 6 wins, and the Broncos and Chiefs each have 7 wins. Those teams are capable of making any of the games fun. I don't think any of them, though, are a match for the big four, but like in the NFC, one of these teams could start playing its best football from here on out.
The big matchups
Let's move over to the schedule and make a list of the games that are meaningfully good the rest of the way. Plenty of other interesting games are on the schedule, but these stand out.
Week 13
Baltimore at Cincinnati (Ravens are in control and can practically clinch the division with a victory. Cincinnati winning gives them a great shot at the Wild Card and a fair chance to catch the division title)
Minnesota at Chicago (the Bears would clinch with a victory; the Vikes would move to .500 and be done playing great opponents this year).
Dallas at New York (the Giants can stay alive; the Cowboys can continue their dominance. Good stuff).
Seattle at Denver (intra-conference games are fun, but at this stage of the year don't mean as much. Still, both teams need to keep winning. Absurdly, this will be Denver's SIXTH night game this year).
Week 14
Baltimore at Kansas City
Indianapolis at Jacksonville
N.Y. Giants at Carolina
Denver at San Diego
New Orleans at Dallas
Week 15
Kansas City at San Diego
Cincinnati at Indianapolis
Week 16
Minnesota at Green Bay (I love this--and I still don't know what local network is getting the broadast coverage from the NFL network).
New England at Jacksonville
New Orleans at N.Y. Giants (man, the Giants' season is falling apart, and in a four week period they play teams that are currently 7-4, 6-5, and 7-4).
Cincinnati at Denver
San Diego at Seattle
Week 17
Carolina at New Orleans (any bets this game decides the division?)
Jacksonville at Kansas City (and this game could determine a Wild Card)
St. Louis at Minnesota (so could this one)
Why Tiki Barber should buy Tom Coughlin flowers
IF Tiki Barber ever makes it into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, it will be Tom Coughlin that put him there.
Look at Barber's numbers. Before Coughlin got to New York in 2004, Barber had surpassed 1,000 yards three times, with a high of 1,386. His numbers suggest a good running back and good receiver out of the backfield.
Then look what happened when Coughlin showed up and focused the offense on Barber. In 2004 and 2005, Barber LED THE LEAGUE IN YARDS FROM SCRIMMAGE. Previously he had only cracked the top 10 in this category twice: 8th in 2000 and 4th in 2002. Then Coughlin came and Barber led the league. In fact, in 2005 Barber had the second-most yards from scrimmage ever, just 39 yards short of Marshall Faulk's record.
Tiki Barber may or may not be a Hall of Fame running back, but he is at least being discussed as such. But make no mistake about it: before Tom Coughlin took over the Giants and focused the offense on Barber, he was merely an above-average running back (maybe you want to criticize Jim Fassel for not featuring Barber earlier). Under Coughlin, Barber became one of the most productive RBs in the league and had one near-historic season.
Look at Barber's numbers. Before Coughlin got to New York in 2004, Barber had surpassed 1,000 yards three times, with a high of 1,386. His numbers suggest a good running back and good receiver out of the backfield.
Then look what happened when Coughlin showed up and focused the offense on Barber. In 2004 and 2005, Barber LED THE LEAGUE IN YARDS FROM SCRIMMAGE. Previously he had only cracked the top 10 in this category twice: 8th in 2000 and 4th in 2002. Then Coughlin came and Barber led the league. In fact, in 2005 Barber had the second-most yards from scrimmage ever, just 39 yards short of Marshall Faulk's record.
Tiki Barber may or may not be a Hall of Fame running back, but he is at least being discussed as such. But make no mistake about it: before Tom Coughlin took over the Giants and focused the offense on Barber, he was merely an above-average running back (maybe you want to criticize Jim Fassel for not featuring Barber earlier). Under Coughlin, Barber became one of the most productive RBs in the league and had one near-historic season.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Nuggets of Wonderment, week 12
Skol Vikings! My mood is mellow because the Vikes got their first W in a month. I was pretty close to ripping my clothes off and going out in the yard to scream at passing cars, but luckily the Vikes held on.
Chester Taylor's 4th quarter fumbles are quite frankly threatening me with heart disease.
The Vikings should have been up 38-13 with about 10 minutes left in Sunday's game; instead, they had to prevent a desperation pass with no time left to preserve victory (tell me, Viking fans, you weren't flashing back to the last regular season game the Vikes and Cards played). As far as I can remember, Taylor has only four fumbles this season. All came in the fourth quarter, and all were recovered by the opposing team. Three of those fumbles are responsible for two Viking losses; the fourth was almost responsible for another. Instead of being ecstatic about a blowout, I'm simply relieved and mellow about a narrow victory.
Brad Johnson
Brad Johnson played well on Sunday, but make no mistake about it: the #1 factor holding back the Viking offense is Johnson's inability to complete passes downfield.
4th Down
The Vikings lead the league in 4th down attempts; only New England has more fourth down conversions. On Sunday, the Vikings scored on a run on 4th and goal, and they scored shorty after a conversion on 4th and 7. For all the criticism, Brad Childress has been remarkably aggressive about going for it on 4th down. Certainly it's not all in his control; situation has dictated the decision in several cases. But it still shows us something.
No, the Viking run defense is that good
It's become fashionable for some commentators to note that maybe the Viking run defense isn't as good as the numbers suggest, that the team is so easy to pass on that a lot of teams aren't even bothering to try run the ball. Well, it's true that the Vikings are easy to pass on, and it's true that a lot of teams are barely bothering to try run the ball.
However, while the 2006 Vikings are #1 against the run giving up 623 yards in 11 games, they are also #1 against the run giving up 2.78 yards per carry. They have given up more pass completions and attempts than any defense in the league, but the numbers show that when teams do try to run against the Vikings, they fail to do so.
Marcus Robinson
Robinson's health was a big reason for the Vikes' 4 game losing streak; he's not a great WR, but he's tall and reasonably consistent, which makes him the Vikings' best WR BY FAR. They need him in order to have offensive success.
That was a mean thing to do to a good looking 28 year old millionaire.
On CBS's pregame show, Charley Casserly discussed the OUTRAGE because in Detroit, the P.A. system specifically called out Joey Ha Ha to be made fun of, naming him and playing "Piano Man." Outrage? Because a good looking 28 year old millionaire got made fun of? I mean, is he alright? Should we send some people over to his very nice home and see if he's OK? Is he crying in the shower biting a washcloth or something?
Update: Peter King is OUTRAGED too.
Have you noticed the Ravens?
The Ravens are 9-2, have a dominating, smothering, scary defense, and might be the most balanced team in the AFC. They could easily win the Super Bowl this year, and this has sort of snuck up on me. The Ravens haven't been the story this season; teams like the Colts, Chargers, and Bears have gotten more attention. But in this freaky season, a defensive team with a veteran QB is the type of team that could win a very boring Super Bowl.
Remember this, fantasy football participants
Reggie Wayne is now the Colts' #1 WR. He is the first person Manning looks to on most plays (though this could be because opponents still cover Harrison with their best CB). His numbers are with Harrison in receptions, ahead in yards and TDs. Harrison is still the consistent reliable WR, and maybe he should even go ahead of Wayne in next year's fantasy draft. But Wayne is now the focus.
Michael Richards
This is a sports blog, and I've got other places I could write about this, but why not here? I'll even link to a football column to make it relevant.
Last week, Jason Whitlock wrote this about Michael Richards:
"I’m sure Jerry Seinfeld had Kramer appear on the Letterman Show because Jerry doesn’t want to be damaged by Kramer’s bigotry.
But Jerry should’ve used his muscle to get Kramer on Oprah or Montel Williams or on the Tom Joyner radio show. Going on Letterman was a business decision. “Seinfeld” is popular with white people. And going on Letterman is a sign that Jerry and Kramer want white people to be comfortable with Kramer.
Kramer doesn’t care what black people think about him. If he did, he would’ve apologized on stage the night it happened."
Since then, Richards has appeared on Jesse Jackson's radio show. I would say that Whitlock was wrong about this: Richards does seem to legitimately care about what black people think of him.
I'm convinced that two things worked together in Richards' tirade: first, he was trying an "over-the-top-push-the-envelope-revel-in-the-taboo" schtick, and secondly, in his anger, he lashed out in a mean-spirited, personal, hurtful way.
Oddly, in his apologies and commentaries, Richards has said some unique, unexpected things. He's not throwing out a canned apology--he seems to be speaking from the heart about the nature of hatred and anger.
Chester Taylor's 4th quarter fumbles are quite frankly threatening me with heart disease.
The Vikings should have been up 38-13 with about 10 minutes left in Sunday's game; instead, they had to prevent a desperation pass with no time left to preserve victory (tell me, Viking fans, you weren't flashing back to the last regular season game the Vikes and Cards played). As far as I can remember, Taylor has only four fumbles this season. All came in the fourth quarter, and all were recovered by the opposing team. Three of those fumbles are responsible for two Viking losses; the fourth was almost responsible for another. Instead of being ecstatic about a blowout, I'm simply relieved and mellow about a narrow victory.
Brad Johnson
Brad Johnson played well on Sunday, but make no mistake about it: the #1 factor holding back the Viking offense is Johnson's inability to complete passes downfield.
4th Down
The Vikings lead the league in 4th down attempts; only New England has more fourth down conversions. On Sunday, the Vikings scored on a run on 4th and goal, and they scored shorty after a conversion on 4th and 7. For all the criticism, Brad Childress has been remarkably aggressive about going for it on 4th down. Certainly it's not all in his control; situation has dictated the decision in several cases. But it still shows us something.
No, the Viking run defense is that good
It's become fashionable for some commentators to note that maybe the Viking run defense isn't as good as the numbers suggest, that the team is so easy to pass on that a lot of teams aren't even bothering to try run the ball. Well, it's true that the Vikings are easy to pass on, and it's true that a lot of teams are barely bothering to try run the ball.
However, while the 2006 Vikings are #1 against the run giving up 623 yards in 11 games, they are also #1 against the run giving up 2.78 yards per carry. They have given up more pass completions and attempts than any defense in the league, but the numbers show that when teams do try to run against the Vikings, they fail to do so.
Marcus Robinson
Robinson's health was a big reason for the Vikes' 4 game losing streak; he's not a great WR, but he's tall and reasonably consistent, which makes him the Vikings' best WR BY FAR. They need him in order to have offensive success.
That was a mean thing to do to a good looking 28 year old millionaire.
On CBS's pregame show, Charley Casserly discussed the OUTRAGE because in Detroit, the P.A. system specifically called out Joey Ha Ha to be made fun of, naming him and playing "Piano Man." Outrage? Because a good looking 28 year old millionaire got made fun of? I mean, is he alright? Should we send some people over to his very nice home and see if he's OK? Is he crying in the shower biting a washcloth or something?
Update: Peter King is OUTRAGED too.
Have you noticed the Ravens?
The Ravens are 9-2, have a dominating, smothering, scary defense, and might be the most balanced team in the AFC. They could easily win the Super Bowl this year, and this has sort of snuck up on me. The Ravens haven't been the story this season; teams like the Colts, Chargers, and Bears have gotten more attention. But in this freaky season, a defensive team with a veteran QB is the type of team that could win a very boring Super Bowl.
Remember this, fantasy football participants
Reggie Wayne is now the Colts' #1 WR. He is the first person Manning looks to on most plays (though this could be because opponents still cover Harrison with their best CB). His numbers are with Harrison in receptions, ahead in yards and TDs. Harrison is still the consistent reliable WR, and maybe he should even go ahead of Wayne in next year's fantasy draft. But Wayne is now the focus.
Michael Richards
This is a sports blog, and I've got other places I could write about this, but why not here? I'll even link to a football column to make it relevant.
Last week, Jason Whitlock wrote this about Michael Richards:
"I’m sure Jerry Seinfeld had Kramer appear on the Letterman Show because Jerry doesn’t want to be damaged by Kramer’s bigotry.
But Jerry should’ve used his muscle to get Kramer on Oprah or Montel Williams or on the Tom Joyner radio show. Going on Letterman was a business decision. “Seinfeld” is popular with white people. And going on Letterman is a sign that Jerry and Kramer want white people to be comfortable with Kramer.
Kramer doesn’t care what black people think about him. If he did, he would’ve apologized on stage the night it happened."
Since then, Richards has appeared on Jesse Jackson's radio show. I would say that Whitlock was wrong about this: Richards does seem to legitimately care about what black people think of him.
I'm convinced that two things worked together in Richards' tirade: first, he was trying an "over-the-top-push-the-envelope-revel-in-the-taboo" schtick, and secondly, in his anger, he lashed out in a mean-spirited, personal, hurtful way.
Oddly, in his apologies and commentaries, Richards has said some unique, unexpected things. He's not throwing out a canned apology--he seems to be speaking from the heart about the nature of hatred and anger.
Friday, November 24, 2006
Some more comments on Michael Irvin
The PFT Rumor Mill has some new news/comments up about Michael Irvin's odd comments. They link to a column by Chris Zelkovich of the Toronto Star. He has one great quote:
"Joke or not, by my count, that's offensive to blacks, whites, grandmothers and humanity in general."
There's one area in which I certainly disagree with Zelkovich though:
"There are lines that simply should not be crossed.
That doesn't mean there should be censorship, but all broadcasters should be told in no uncertain terms that there are certain areas that should be given a wide berth.
Race and ethnicity have to be at the top of that list."
Is Zelkovich suggesting that race and ethnicity should be ingored from the national dialogue on sports? If so, that is an absurd way to strive for racial equality; stopping discussion of issues is no way to actually deal with issues.
There's also a link to a column by Jay Posner of the San Diego Union-Tribune.
Here I think Posner slips into an easy fallacy:
"Irvin was laughing while he was talking, but ask yourself this: What would the reaction have been if Steve Young had made those comments? Why is this any different?"
That's like asking if Borat's comedy about anti-semitism would be received differently if Sasha Baron Cohen weren't Jewish. If you are a member of a particular group, you have a lot more leeway when making pushing-the-envelope jokes or comments involving that group. That's been pretty widely accepted, and for the most part isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Michael Irvin was one of my favorite football players. I agree with most people on the internet that he is a horrible analyst. He yells, he doesn't express ideas clearly (though I'm an English teacher, I'm not an English snob; I don't demand that he use the Queen's English, but his use of language should be coherent), and he doesn't bring any real insight of interest. But I don't think he should be fired for making an odd comment about race. For one thing, allowing members of minority groups free expression to make odd commments about race is one of the best ways we have to advance goals of racial understanding and equality.
"Joke or not, by my count, that's offensive to blacks, whites, grandmothers and humanity in general."
There's one area in which I certainly disagree with Zelkovich though:
"There are lines that simply should not be crossed.
That doesn't mean there should be censorship, but all broadcasters should be told in no uncertain terms that there are certain areas that should be given a wide berth.
Race and ethnicity have to be at the top of that list."
Is Zelkovich suggesting that race and ethnicity should be ingored from the national dialogue on sports? If so, that is an absurd way to strive for racial equality; stopping discussion of issues is no way to actually deal with issues.
There's also a link to a column by Jay Posner of the San Diego Union-Tribune.
Here I think Posner slips into an easy fallacy:
"Irvin was laughing while he was talking, but ask yourself this: What would the reaction have been if Steve Young had made those comments? Why is this any different?"
That's like asking if Borat's comedy about anti-semitism would be received differently if Sasha Baron Cohen weren't Jewish. If you are a member of a particular group, you have a lot more leeway when making pushing-the-envelope jokes or comments involving that group. That's been pretty widely accepted, and for the most part isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Michael Irvin was one of my favorite football players. I agree with most people on the internet that he is a horrible analyst. He yells, he doesn't express ideas clearly (though I'm an English teacher, I'm not an English snob; I don't demand that he use the Queen's English, but his use of language should be coherent), and he doesn't bring any real insight of interest. But I don't think he should be fired for making an odd comment about race. For one thing, allowing members of minority groups free expression to make odd commments about race is one of the best ways we have to advance goals of racial understanding and equality.
Dennis Green returns to Thunderdome
In truth, the Vikes were much better under Denny Green than they have been since he left. Under Green, there were 8 playoff appearances, 4 division titles, and two trips to the NFC Title game. But Denny was heavily involved in the Gary Anderson game. So screw Denny Green. Screw him hard.
Vikings 19, Cardinals 0.
Vikings 19, Cardinals 0.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
In praise of Tony Romo-erotic
The Cowboys are probably the second-best team in the NFC. One of Football Outsiders' precepts is, "Championship teams are generally defined by their ability to dominate inferior opponents, not their ability to win close games." This season, the Cowboys have a 27-10 victory over Washington, a 45-14 victory over Tennessee, a 34-6 victory over Houston, a 35-14 victory over Carolina, a 27-10 victory over Arizona, and now a 38-10 victory over Tampa Bay. They have the kind of offense that could go into Soldier Field in January and win (a mobile QB, a strong running game, athletic WRs).
Tony Romo is getting a lot of the credit, though to be fair, he's throwing to Terrell Owens, Terry Glenn, and Jason Witten, and handing off to Julius Jones and Marion Barber. He's got enough mobility to avoid a pass rush and enough arm strength and accuracy to get the ball downfield to WRs who are often very open. This might be a case where simply an average QB with some mobility can step in and benefit from the talent around him. But give him credit for thriving with the opportunity.
The Bears could cruise to a Super Bowl championship with an average victory margin in the playoffs of 20; they really could. They could also lose badly in any particular game in the playoffs if Sexy Rexy has one of his awful games and a versatile offense is able to move the ball against them. Dallas seems like the right team for the job.
Text and Subtext: Race in Sports
If you pay attention to announcers during sporting events, you will hear also sorts of racial assumptions in the subtext. When talking about black players, concepts like "athletic," "natural," "gifted," and "talent" are more likely to come up; when talking about white players, concepts like "hard work," "effort," "scrappy," "heart," or "intelligence" are likely to come up. Pay attention and see if you don't notice this.
So, I'm suggesting there are all sorts of racial assumptions going on in the language about sports. These assumptions are there in the subtext of much sports commentary.
Here's what Michael Irvin said, via PFT:
Said Irvin of Romo: "He doesn't look like he's that type of an athlete. But he is. He is, man. I don't know . . . some brother down in that line somewhere. . . . I don't know who saw what or where, his great-great-great-great-grandma ran over in the 'hood or something went down."
Recognizing the idiocy of Irvin's comments, Dan Patrick said, "Oh, that's the only way he can be a great athlete?"
"That's not the only way, but it's certainly one way," Irvin said. "If great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandma pulled one of them studs up out of the barn [and said], 'Come on in here for a second,' you know, and they go out and work in the yard. You know, back in the day."
Stupid? Yes. Utterly. Racially insensitive? Yes. Statements like this can only hurt the goal of eventual equality of races in America. But in many ways, Irvin is just making explicit assumptions about race and athleticism that all sorts of announcers, commentators, writers, and fans hold. We should be concerned about explicit, textual statements like this; but we should be just as concerned, perhaps more concerned, with the implicit, sub-textual statements about racial assumptions that occur all the time.
So, I'm suggesting there are all sorts of racial assumptions going on in the language about sports. These assumptions are there in the subtext of much sports commentary.
Here's what Michael Irvin said, via PFT:
Said Irvin of Romo: "He doesn't look like he's that type of an athlete. But he is. He is, man. I don't know . . . some brother down in that line somewhere. . . . I don't know who saw what or where, his great-great-great-great-grandma ran over in the 'hood or something went down."
Recognizing the idiocy of Irvin's comments, Dan Patrick said, "Oh, that's the only way he can be a great athlete?"
"That's not the only way, but it's certainly one way," Irvin said. "If great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandma pulled one of them studs up out of the barn [and said], 'Come on in here for a second,' you know, and they go out and work in the yard. You know, back in the day."
Stupid? Yes. Utterly. Racially insensitive? Yes. Statements like this can only hurt the goal of eventual equality of races in America. But in many ways, Irvin is just making explicit assumptions about race and athleticism that all sorts of announcers, commentators, writers, and fans hold. We should be concerned about explicit, textual statements like this; but we should be just as concerned, perhaps more concerned, with the implicit, sub-textual statements about racial assumptions that occur all the time.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
The Idea of a "Double Standard" and Sports
When I hear white people complain about a "double standard" by which black people (or members of any minority group) get away with saying things that white people would not get away with saying, I'm a little perplexed. It happens fairly frequently. Most recently, Pro Football Talk compared recent odd comments by Michael Irvin to Rush Limbaugh's comments on Donovan McNabb:
"But what of the African-American public figure who makes comments just as idiotic, and arguably as blatantly racist? Why is a pass granted in this regard?"
"Can someone please explain to us why Irvin hasn't been fired or suspended or even called out for his comments?"
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.
And by the way, I'm just sad about Michael Richards. Basically unable to even talk about it.
"But what of the African-American public figure who makes comments just as idiotic, and arguably as blatantly racist? Why is a pass granted in this regard?"
"Can someone please explain to us why Irvin hasn't been fired or suspended or even called out for his comments?"
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.
And by the way, I'm just sad about Michael Richards. Basically unable to even talk about it.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Hopes for the Rest of this Nonsense
We've already seen ten freaking games from every team. But there's more to go, so let's look at my hopes for the rest of the season. These are hopes, not predictions, nor are they assessments of anything that has happened yet.
Teams I want to win the Super Bowl:
1. Minnesota
2. Indianapolis
...
29. Pittsburgh
30. New England
31. Baltimore
32. Green Bay
Quarterbacks I don't want to see starting for the Vikings anymore: Brad Johnson
Quarterbacks I do want to see starting for the Vikings: Tarvaris Jackson
What I hope happens to Brett Favre:
1. He doesn't break Dan Marino's touchdown record
2. His starts streak is broken
3. He breaks George Blanda's interception record
4. His team doesn't win another game
Overrated Chicago Bear that I hope sucks the rest of the way: Brian Urlacher
Who I hope wins MVP:
1. Peyton Manning
2. Ladainian Tomlinson
3. Steve Smith
Who I hope makes the Pro Bowl: Pat Williams
Who I hope doesn't directly cause me a nervous breakdown by dropping passes: Troy Williamson
Who I hope continues his assault on Brett Favre's reputation for interceptions: Ben Roethlisbergr (they don't spell his whole name on Madden, so why should I?)
So what do you want to happen?
Emmitt Smith: underrated running back
In my football watching days, I've seen 4 running backs that deserve legitimate consideration in discussions of "the greatest ever": Emmitt Smith, Barry Sanders, Marshall Faulk, and Ladainian Tomlinson. I've also seen some that are spectacular, but that nobody would consider the greatest ever for various reasons (Terrell Davis, Thurman Thomas, Edgerrin James, Priest Holmes). I think the best one is Emmitt Smith.
First, go look at his numbers. In his prime from '91-'95, Smith rushed for 1484 yards or more 5 straight years, with peaks of 1713 and 1773. He set the single season touchdown record (25), won 4 rushing titles, led the league in yards from scrimmage twice, led the league in touchdowns 3 times, won an MVP, 3 Super Bowls, and a Super Bowl MVP. A legitimate argument could be made that this is the greatest 5 year performance of any player in the history of the league.
He was no slouch as a receiver, either. He caught 40 passes or more 7 straight years with a high of 62. Admittedly, as a pass-catching RB he's not in Tomlinson's or Faulk's league, but then he wasn't asked to be, either.
Later in his career, when he was older and more worn down and the Cowboys became mediocre, he was still very productive. From 1998-2000, when the Cowboys were 23-25, Smith rushed for 1,332 yards and 13 TDs (4.2 average), 1,397 yards and 11 TDs (4.2 average), and 1,203 yards and 9 TDs (4.1 average).
The fact is, I think Emmitt Smith deserves serious consideration as THE GREATEST FOOTBALL PLAYER OF ALL-TIME.
Many people hold it against Emmitt Smith because he played on the Cowboys, a great team that won three Super Bowls and had a good offensive line. The theory goes that any RB would be successful with that line, or at least any very good running back. This is, to me, hogwash. There’s also a possibility that Emmitt Smith made his offensive linemen look better than they were. It is also clear that Smith WAS A PRIMARY REASON THEY WON THREE SUPER BOWLS. To hold the fact that a player played on championship teams against him, when he was directly responsible for the fact that they were a championship team, is senseless. Nobody would hold championships against a quarterback; why would anybody hold championships against a running back?
I think there might be a general trend among Cowboy haters to give little credit to any of the big name skill position players that helped them win three championships. It's more palatable for the haters to credit the fairly anonymous and general "offensive line" that to credit Smith (said to be great because of his line), Troy Aikman (said to be great because of Smith and the line), or Michael Irvin (said to be great because of Smith, Aikman, and the line). This doesn't hold for me.
Here's an interesting study at the Pro Football Reference Blog suggesting Emmitt Smith had two very good careers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)