As most of you are aware, I like referencing popular literature or entertainment to shape the context of a story or discussion point. Today’s column will reference one of my favorite books, George Orwell’s Animal Farm, and one of my favorite movies, Mel Brooks’ Blazing Saddles. Perhaps this is an odd combination... Or perhaps I’m crazy like a fox. You’ll just have to read along and see how things go, eh?
The true protagonist of Animal Farm is Napoleon the Pig, so now you have an initial connection to this column’s title. For those who don’t remember Napoleon’s law of the farm, there were two “constitutional” proclamations painted on the side of the barn: All animals are created equal. Some animals are created more equally than others. So, class... Today’s “lesson” has something to do with fair play, but it has nothing to do with baseballs landing inside any white chalked lines... Nor does it have anything to do with portion control, so enjoy unrestricted munching on your snack as you read.
I give you Exhibit A... New York Jets wide receiver Santonio Holmes, inventor of the South Beach hissy fit during the final drive of last year’s regular season finale, a 19-17 loss to the Dolphins. Earlier this week, Mr. Holmes, basking in the glow -- er, relief — of last Sunday’s 23-20 overtime win in Miami and arguably the most productive game of his Jets tenure (9 receptions, 147 yards), managed to find something to complain about. What’s the problem? Holmes has been very successful drawing pass interference penalties (8 so far in the Jets first 3 games), a big pay-off from lots of extra speed training with receivers coach Sanjay Lal. Those penalties gave the Jets offense 8 additional first downs, extending scoring drives for the team. Well, there are team players, and then there’s Santonio Holmes. What’s Holmes’ beef, considering he’s been involved so far in 17 positive plays compared to quarterback Mark Sanchez’s total of 50 pass completions? Mr. Holmes wishes the penalty yardage was applied to his personal receiving stats.
Believe it or not, it’s not necessarily the craziest modernization of player statistics I’ve ever heard of. In theory, if Holmes caught all those passes he was interfered with, he’d be off to an All-Pro start, so why not give him credit for the yards he picked up for the team via penalty and give him partial credit for a reception?
OINK! OINK! OINK! Because good ol’ Santonio was only thinking about his own stats, not the quarterback’s, as in the guy who threw Holmes the pass. If we’re going to give Holmes yardage credit for almost catching a pass he was interfered with, shouldn’t Sanchez also get some statistical credit for throwing the pass to begin with? Nah... Holmes could care less about Sanchez’s stats. Holmes, ever the team player, told the New York Daily News: “when you’re catching the ball in the end zone and you get a flag drawn, you don’t want a running back on the 1-yard-line stealing your touchdown.”
Is he kidding us?! If Holmes catches the ball in the end zone, the pass interference penalty is moot on the basis of a scored touchdown. The reason for receiving penalty yardage for pass interference is because the receiver DIDN’T catch the ball. What offensive coordinator in his right mind calls the same pass play from the 1-yard-line after your top receiver already got mugged on the previous play? If Holmes couldn’t separate himself from a defensive back running downfield, what makes him think he can get open within the boxed-in confines of the end zone?! If the running back scores on the next play, that’s his touchdown, not Holmes’. You see, Santonio, this is how the game works... He who runs over the goal line with the ball in his hands scores the touchdown. If you want some kind of statistical assist, switch sports and play hockey.
Speaking of hockey, the NHL just canceled their entire preseason for the 2012-2013 season because the players are locked out. Players want more money. Owners want to keep more of it for themselves. Gee, where have we heard this debate before?
I give you Exhibit B... The NFL owners finally reached a new contract settlement with the referees association. After three weeks of replacement officials trying to fill the shoes of officials who really know how to officiate an NFL game, we no longer have to worry about imposters botching calls, assigning penalties to the wrong teams, and embarrassing the league... Until the regular officials botch a call at the worst possible moment. Just like everyone else, I tried to maintain my patience while the replacement officials tried to do a job they were inadequately prepared for. Unlike everyone else, I didn’t carry on the world was ending because former high school referees were officiating nationally televised NFL games. It was what it was, and thank goodness it was only for three weeks. It really could’ve been worse, as in the entire season. If that overwhelms your patience, how would you handle your child starting the school year with a brand-new teacher who was freshly graduated from college, lacking one iota of unmonitored classroom experience? What are you going to do then — march into the school principal’s office and demand the old retired teacher be brought back until your child’s promoted to the next grade? Where do you think you are, Yankee Stadium, where Andy Pettitte keeps returning one more time?
Let it go, officiating purists. I didn’t see you guys out there pitching in to preserve the “shield.” In fact, I thought it would’ve been better if retired NFL players volunteered to officiate games while the lockout was going on, so we at least knew things were in the hands of people who were most familiar with the rules and speed of the game, but what do I know?
A little advice to Packers fans... I watched that game Monday night, almost the entire slog fest, including the final play -- the “interception that wasn’t” -- and I think the Seahawks defense sacking Aaron Rodgers eight times was a far bigger thing to worry about than the Packers losing the game on a Hail Mary that was full of something other than Grace. If the Packer offensive line doesn’t start blocking better, Green Bay is facing diminished odds of becoming Titletown again this season.
Memo to Rex Ryan: See game film of Seattle defensive line. Behavior reflects what is called a pass rush. Teach it to Jets defensive line.
But seriously, folks... As much as the NFL is a $9-Billion industry, lockouts and protracted contract negotiations between owners and unions representing on-field participants should not be shocking, nor should we be reaching for high-power sedatives or pointing fingers and taking sides every time a new contract needs to be hammered out. All parties are trying to negotiate very long-term contracts and want to get it right. The players have a ten-year CBA and now the officials have an eight-year CBA. Those are long periods of time to have to live with the terms of a deal. Sure, it’s a lot of moolah at stake and all parties are trying to score as much as possible and then some more. It’s not like players or officials can hold out in unison every few years if they don’t feel economically loved enough anymore relative to revenue. Unions aren’t just negotiating CBAs for today and tomorrow; they’re negotiating CBAs in the face of today’s economics while trying to foresee an economic landscape a decade down the road. Shame on the NFL and the NFLRA for not starting negotiations earlier in order to prevent a lockout, but shame on all of us for acting like the sky was falling while replacements tried and failed to maintain law and order during games. What was the NFL supposed to do? Cancel the season until a new CBA was worked out and ratified? Think back to how nuts folks were last year at the prospect of a suspended season while the players CBA negotiations slogged at a snail’s pace? OINK! OINK! OINK! The NFL was damned if it did and damned if it didn’t because pro football fans have become too impatient and obsessed with the sport. If the perpetual risk of deadly injury doesn’t kill the sport, the mind-boggling money and greed will, or our insatiable appetite and unrealistic expectations will.
Speaking of money, greed, contracts, holdout and injuries...
I give you Exhibit C... OINK! OINK! OINK! Shame on all of us, including the media and Jets injured cornerback supreme, Darrelle Revis, for speculating about the status of his contract and future free agency less than 48 hours after he torn the ACL in his left knee in Miami last Sunday. He hasn’t even begun rehab or had surgery yet, and people, including Revis and his agents, are worrying about whether he’s going to get his big payday in 2013?! Maybe we should see how Revis is able to play on that surgically repaired knee first? And WHAT payday?! He’s under contract through the 2013 season after scoring big twice already after protracted and disruptive holdouts in 2007 and 2010. Enough is enough! He’s due approximately $6-Million in 2013; that’s more than generous after earning in excess of $60-Million since his rookie season. More importantly, Revis is one of 53 men that a total team salary of approximately $125-Million must be divvied among. My ballpark estimation is that Revis represents approximately two-percent of the roster but approximately five-recent of the salary pool. Revis isn’t the only Jet looking for a new contract, and before you know it, the Jets front office may run out of money trying to pacify their superstars, deserving, overrated, injured or irrelevant.
My first thought after Revis injured his knee? The crappy turf at Miami’s Pro Player Stadium -- or whatever the Dolphins ownership calls it now — gave way. Dolphins running back Reggie Bush tweaked his knee, and Jets rookie receiver Stephen Hill aggravated his hamstring at least twice during the second quarter of the game. The field quality is dangerous, especially during a rainstorm. Perhaps Dolphins ownership should invest a few more bucks into improving the field and a few less bucks into luxury suites for Jennifer Lopez and other local celebrities.
My second thought? Now Revis has something to focus his attention on besides his “corporate statements.” Contrary to Revis’ contentions, he’s a professional football player, not a corporation. Now we’ll find out what he really is next summer, whether he’s Darrelle Revis, perennial All-Pro committed to being a Jet for life, or the newest version of Leon Washington, a greedy player coming off an injury who overinflated his price tag and got traded.
My third thought? Maybe if Revis showed up to training camp in August without entertaining any questions regarding his contract status, he would’ve been in tip-top football shape and possibly prevented this season-ending injury. He came into camp with hamstring issues and not one day went by without him discussing his present and future contract status with the media. For every day he invested time, energy and thought on money, he was diverting his time, energy and thought from physical health and proper preparation for the long grind of another season. If you don’t think sideshow issues distract players and teams from on-field performance, look no further than the New Orleans Saints and their all-too-vocal quarterback, Drew Brees. The Saints are reeling at 0-3 and Brees spends more time backtracking from public statements than he does dropping back in the pass pocket. You don’t think delayed issues related to the players’ CBA, BountyGate, revolving head coaches, replacement officials and too much time on Twitter can clutter a person’s mind?
I give you Exhibit D... Did you see how Denver Broncos linebacker Joe Mays hit Texans QB Matt Schaub with such force that he not only blasted off Schaub’s helmet, the impact actually tore a piece of Schaub’s ear away. Yuck! The NFL fined Mays $50K and suspended him without pay for Sunday’s game against Oakland. Guess what? Mays is appealing the fine and suspension. OINK! OINK! OINK! An opposing player lost part of his EAR on account of your hit, Mr. Mays... Do you honestly think your personal financial interests outweigh accountability for permanently disfiguring someone because you’re too stupid to understand “no helmet-to-helmet contact” really means NO HELMET-TO-HELMET CONTACT?! REALLY?!
I finally give you Exhibit E... This week’s champion piggy is none other than Republican Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown. For those who aren’t following every election campaign around the United States, a US senatorial election debate took place in Massachusetts, and Senator Brown unleashed a focused attack on Dr. Elizabeth Warren, his Democratic opponent, for claiming she has Native American ethnicity on her Affirmative Action questionnaire when she interviewed for academic employment at Harvard University’s Law School. Did Senator Brown demonstrate poor taste and a knee-jerk partisan-style attack on Dr. Warren and Affirmative Action in the context of feminism and gender equity? He most certainly did, but I believe Senator Brown has a much bigger issue going on.
Senator Brown is an ass, plain and simple, independent of his political affiliation, gender or ethnicity. Our nation’s capitol is full of morons like Scott Brown, Congressman Allen West and Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann. West and Bachmann spew nonsense about communists in Congress and President Obama being an American operative for al Qaeda. And let’s not forget dopes like Emmett Brown in the Maryland House of Delegates, who tried to muzzle members of the Baltimore Ravens from publicly supporting Gay Marriage.
So Scott Brown accuses Dr. Warren of committing “employment fraud” during an election debate. Why? Because we all have the right to free speech, for better or worse, and we don’t have laws against smearing those who don’t share our beliefs, affiliations or ideologies. The United States the only nation I know where the initial response to something or someone we don’t agree with is to discredit ideas as “frivolous” and brand people with those ideas as “crackpots.” There is no such thing as respect anymore for individual ideas, views or principles — especially if such ideas, views and principles contradict our own -- and it doesn’t matter if we’re talking about politics, our legal system, discourse within the media, or people coexisting within a community or larger society. Scott Brown felt compelled to firebomb Dr. Warren on statewide TV (and national network TV for posterity), because that’s the first line of offense and defense in order to “win the game.”
Why is Mr. Brown so compelled to do this? Sure, perhaps because he’s playing the role of threatened white affluent male, watching a woman he repeatedly deems unworthy to wash his socks challenge him for his “rightful” place of power in America. Perhaps he’s even indignant because Dr. Warren “used” Affirmative Action to “get ahead” in life while he had to “debase” himself by posing for beefcake photos during college — even though he was very well paid for posing in his skivvies and played it to his popular advantage when he was elected in 2010 to take over the late Ted Kennedy’s seat. There must be more fundamental yet lofty and potentially pathologic related to his attack beyond Ugh! Me tall, handsome white man! Tall handsome white men always get the job!
You see, Mr. Brown considers himself “special”... No, make that exceptional!
Senator Brown really buys into the theory of American Exceptionalism, that he has a royal pedigree that predisposes and predetermines his ultimate station in American society... High national political office. That’s his birthright, because, by golly, he comes from the genetic stock (unaffected by loopy theories like Evolution, of course) G-d always intended to rule our nation. Senator Brown’s the supreme possessor of creator-given inalienable rights — life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In Senator Brown’s eyes, Dr. Warren is some lowly, wretched wench who has no business breathing his air, much less running against him for Senate or teaching America’s best and brightest future attorneys as a professor.
Senator Brown believes Dr. Warren has to resort to “constitutional gimmicks” like Affirmative Action and other civil rights legislation, in order to rise above her creator-given station. She dared to “take advantage of” Affirmative Action because she comes from far too putrid genetic stock to rise on her own. Why? Because Senator Brown’s creator predetermined her station, just like everyone’s station, but by a process less “icky” and weird than India’s caste system. Guess what? Dr. Warren’s predetermined station wasn’t supposed to be a university professor of any kind, much less holder of political office. How does Scott Brown know? Because the US constitution, as written by our forefathers — not our foremothers or forepeople — never mind that our nation’s 16th President, Abraham Lincoln, said our constitution and government were FOR THE PEOPLE... According to folks like Senator Brown, our constitution didn’t explicitly give rights to wenches, not to mention people of color, people of different faiths, people of different languages, people of different sexualities, or people without full physical faculties. Those rights were only given to people like Scott Brown’s forefathers of white Protestant stock. How incredibly repulsive it must be to Scott Brown and his privileged white Protestant heritage that Dr. Warren... A lowly red-skinned squaw... Twisted our constitution to enable her to be on equal footing with him for his elected office!
Jumping Roger Williams! How the hell does some menopausal hag, some thirtieth-generation descendant of Pocahontas, dare to run against me, Lord Scott Brown, Duke of Jockey Underwear, Earl of Cosmo Magazine?!
Can you just imagine the cognitive dissonance going on is this schmuck’s head since his re-election campaign started? He thought the got rid of Dr. Warren in 2010, and she’s back with a vengeance and hot on his heels. Brown supporters are doing Tomahawk Chops like they’re alumni at a Florida State football game, and the polls are in a statistical dead heat with six weeks until election day. The sad and sickening part of all this is that Scott Brown would be freaking out and resorting to ugly hate-based taunts regardless of who his opponent is.
I’ll bet you any amount that if Scott Brown was running against Hawaii Senator Daniel Inouye, he’d challenge the World War II veteran to an arm wrestle on national TV. That’s simply the kind of jackass Brown is. In order to remind voters how elevated he is by some divine providence, he must rub “otherness” in the face of his opponent, whether his opponent is a woman, a racial or ethnic minority, or someone who lost their arm during military combat. Don’t scoff... Remember how former Georgia Senator (and VA Director) Max Cleland, who lost three limbs during the Viet-Nam War, lost re-election in 2002 because his patriotism was questioned after not voting for the War in Iraq? Remember how Massachusetts’ other Senator, John Kerry, was Swift-boated during the 2004 presidential re-election?
I can hear Senator Brown’s voice now as Napoleon the Pig reads the barn house constitution to the rest of the farm animals. Get the picture? Senator Brown must always be “more equal” than anyone else in America, because nobody... Nobody... deserves his position or power, and nobody... Nobody... dare redistribute that power, because such power is only befitting a pig like Scott Brown. OINK! OINK! OINK!
The sad irony is that many of us didn’t know of Dr. Warren’s Native American roots, and rather than the distinction being an interesting and intriguing conversation piece, Senator Brown tried to turn it into some dirty secret, a “gotcha” moment to frighten American voters.
This reminds me of a very cheeky dialogue from the opening scene of Blazing Saddles, where railroad workers in 1876 Colorado encounter possible quicksand along the planned route. Project Foreman Mr. Taggart (played by the late Slim Pickens) informs his right-hand man, Lyle (played by Burton Gilliam) to check out the troublesome area ahead. Lyle offers to round up a team of horses, and Mr. Taggart admonishes him: “Horses?! We can’t afford to lose no horses, you dummy! Send over a couple of n____rs.” Accordingly, Lyle chooses our movie’s hero, Bart (played by the late Cleavon Little) and his buddy Charlie (played by the late Charles McGregor). Bart interrupts Lyle and says: “Sir... Sir, he specifically requested two n____rs. Well, to tell a family secret, my grandmother was Dutch!”
How did we get from 1974 and the ability to find comedy within our melting pot of heritages to 2012 where one’s diversity from pure whiteness is potentially the crime of the century?!
It’s because of this epidemic of people who are incapable of tolerating difference, diversity and heterogeneity, and those pathological people honestly believe their kind set first foot on American soil and built this nation with nothing but blessings from heaven. The rest of us, and we know who we are, because we’re among each other, we’re the outsiders, the intruders, the demographic impurities.
Fact, I’m legally, physically and permanently disabled. That’s no longer a surprise after all the years you’ve been reading my columns. We all know I qualify as an “other” in Mitt Romney’s and Scott Brown’s America. Well, guess what? I’ve always been an “other” since the day I was born. My fellow readers, I give you Exhibit F... A century old photo of my paternal grandfather, Barnett Pushkin.
Does my grandfather look like your typical white man to you? Russia’s a very large country, covering nine time zones and two continents. Southern and Eastern Russians are actually Asian, not Anglo nor Western European, but in our idiotic system of Affirmative Action, we don’t use it to acknowledge our unique differences and diversities; we use it as bureaucratic and legislative weapon to make sure as many people get suppressed as opposed to supported. What kind of nation have we come to when race and ethnicity are still viewed as societal, economic and political threats?
No, we’re not just among the 47 percent Mitt Romney sees no use for heading towards November 6th — we’re the expendable ones in times of economic crisis and global conflict. We’re among those who weren’t fortunate enough to obtain draft deferments during the Viet Nam War and were sent to be maimed and die in rice patties while Governor Romney obtained a Mormon exemption so he could participate in protests in favor of the war and draft while men his own age were forced to leave home, family and college educations for Paris Island and Saigon. When the stress of saber rattling became too much for the governor, he relocated to the beaches of southern France to unwind, perhaps open new bank accounts, and bask in privilege.
The war ended while I was still in high school, but cousins and colleagues of mine served in Viet-Nam. They didn’t have the option of Southern France. They had the options of service, jail, or defection to Canada. Plenty of our political leaders obtained draft deferments and protested the war and draft from their college campuses during the 1960s and 1970s, but they never actively held the door to death and destruction open for others like Mitt Romney did. There’s a definite difference between saving one’s bacon and tying your neighbor on the barbeque spit. OINK! OINK! OINK!
Again, what kind of warped and sick principles do certain people have while they seek election to the highest levels of public office? Doesn’t this affect us enough to stay as far away from their names on the ballot as possible, or have we become beholden to them and the crap they’re selling us at every campaign appearance?
It’s a shame this column wasn’t about something more trivial like overeating and portion control. As Election Day draws nearer and nearer, I’m not sure whether to reach for a bag of chips for cheap comfort or an upchuck bag to relieve me of the progressive nausea American politics gives me. Then again, our increasingly selfish society always makes me a tad queasy.
Dave Pushkin is a former football player, scientist, and chemistry/physics professor, now working as an educational research consultant based in New Jersey. Disabled from a spinal injury since 2006, he writes about various issues in sports, science, politics, health care, and education.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Nothing burns my ass more than folks’ heads up theirs -- Doc’s Bark for September 23, 2012
Earlier this week, Jews all over the world celebrated Rosh Hashanah, the “head” of the Hebrew year. Just like many people do every January 1, Jewish people make “resolutions” each Rosh Hashanah. I happen to be no different. What’s my “resolution”? Basically to remind the rest of the world that I’m not dead yet and still have thoughts to share and principles to stand up for while I’m still alive and mentally functional.
One can think about lots of things during time away from blogging, but it’s no longer conceivable to write monstrous columns to cover all the bases and make up for lost time. So, for the sake of focus, efficiency and self-preservation, I’m going to write about one specific issue, state my thoughts and be done with it until the world hears from me again.
Well, this column’s issue addresses the intersection between stupidity and hypocrisy, one of my favorite issues to write about. Oh sure, stupidity and hypocrisy exist in so many ways, but our chat focuses on the special way foot-in-mouth disease brings out stupidity and hypocrisy in their purest forms, and what better examples of pure stupidity and hypocrisy are there than Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and Tampa Bay Buccaneers head coach Greg Schiano. Talk about hitting the Daily Double!
In case you’ve lost track of current events while agonizing over MLB divisional and wild-card races, or the eventual outcome of BountyGate, or replacement officials in the NFL, or when Tim Tebow will part the Hudson River, Governor Romney, back in May, schmoozed with aristocrats in Boca Raton, Florida at a $50,000/plate dinner. Governor Romney, unaware a hidden video camera was near his podium, decided it made sense to schmooze “off the cuff” and... Wait! You’re gonna love it!... Told a roomful of rich white Floridians that he had no use for 47 percent of the voting public, because those folks didn’t pay any federal income taxes and were irreversibly and unconditionally aligned to and voting for President Barack Obama. I know... Ain’t it a hoot?! But wait... It gets better!
Governor Romney characterized that 47 percent as “believing that they are victims... dependent upon government... Believing government has a responsibility to care for them... Believing that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it... Entitlement... Blah, blah, blah... Government should give it to them.” And as if the violins needed queuing, Governor Romney lamented: “I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” But alas, he has a change of heart during an appearance on Univision and proclaims he’s running a presidential campaign on behalf of 100 percent of Americans, whatever the hell that means at any random moment in his campaign.
Geez... If only the Hallmark Channel could produce movies so touching...
If you’ve seriously followed this train wreck of a presidential campaign since the GOP debates and primaries, you already know the former governor of Massachusetts is the epitome of contradiction, hypocrisy, and flaming rhetoric. Governor Romney is against the Affordable Health Care Act (affectionately referred to as “Obamacare”), but he created the same program for all the citizens of his state long before President Obama even ran for the Illinois state senate, and the governor apparently enjoys being known as the “Grandfather of Obamacare” when it suits his convenience.
Governor Romney believes in self-deportation of illegal immigrants, but would “like to staple a green card to every Ph.D. in the world and say ‘Come to America, we want you here.’” The governor also enjoys boasting about his Mexican-born grandfather every chance he gets, yet he’s less effusive regarding his several foreign bank accounts.
Governor Romney was dead-set against the auto industry bailout, but he loves to remind people that he owns a few General Motors vehicles and his wife drives “a couple of Cadillacs, actually.”
Governor Romney sees no use for the Environmental Protection Agency, but he likes it when “all the trees are the right height” in his home state of Michigan. Governor Romney, by the way, calls Michigan his home state, but he was governor of Massachusetts and owns homes in Florida, Utah and California.
Governor Romney “likes firing people”, but aside from his one term as governor of Massachusetts (2003-2007), he’s been perpetually unemployed longer than any individual I know. I’m curious to know what he writes for “Occupation/Profession” on his federal income tax returns... Aspiring Oligarch?! International Financier?! You figure he has to claim a creative title to reflect a personal tax rate of 13-14 percent on an annual income approaching $15 million, right?
Governor Romney accused all of his GOP primary challengers of running smear campaigns against him while his own super pac loyalists firebombed all challengers with scathing TV ads... To think folks called Arnold Swarzenegger “Governator”! And Mr. Romney will bet you 10 grand his hands were completely clean on these dirty political stunts!
Most inflaming and hypocritical of all, Governor Romney tells President Obama to take his “campaign of hate, divisiveness and class warfare back to Chicago” while spewing his own brand of hate, divisiveness and class warfare. Hate? What hate? the disingenuous governor wonders. Mr. Romney trails in most polls these days to a president categorized as “non-American, fraud, apologist, terrorist sympathizer, socialist, redistributionist...” and it likely eats at Mr. Romney, his supporters and fellow Republicans that he’s trailing a human being they deem unworthy to be more than a shoe-shiner. When a wealthy white political candidate publicly proclaims that our nation’s first multi-racial president “go back to where he came from”, only a complete idiot wouldn’t recognize that Chicago was not the first place on Mr. Romney’s mind, just like it isn’t on Sarah Palin’s mind, Donald Trump’s mind, or Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell’s mind.
President Obama doesn’t get a complete pass on things either. Despite inheriting a complete mess from the Bush-43 administration in January 2009 and working against congressional Republicans hell-bent on sending our nation down the toilet for the sake of partisanship, he hasn’t thrown enough counterpunches when opponents attacked, nor has he pushed hard enough on key reforms in order to placate opposition. Yes, it rubs me wrong that he attends $40,000/plate fundraisers in Manhattan for his re-election campaign (I guess it costs $10,000 more to entertain wealthy bigots in Boca Raton?). Yes, he could’ve done much more during his first term, but he’s done far from nothing, the modus operandi of congressional Republicans. All things considered, at least he’s tried his damnedest to be everyone’s president and keep us from completely circling the drain, and at least gets my vote for a second term to continue our painful recovery.
Somehow this election is supposed to be about our nation’s struggling economy. Mr. Romney, in a September 19 Op-Ed to USA TODAY, promises to “deliver recovery, not dependency” and “policies [that] foster mobility.” In fact, from the very first words of Mr. Romney’s Op-Ed, he states: “Since our founding, America has promoted personal responsibility, the dignity of work and the value of education. These values made our nation the hope of the earth and out economy the envy of the world. Efforts that promote hard work and personal responsibility over government dependency make America strong. When the economy is growing and Americans are working, everyone involved has a shared sense of achievement, not to mention the basic sense of pride that comes with the paycheck they earn.”
Have I missed something within this preamble to another specifics-lacking self-pontification by Mr. Romney, but are these not the words of a man who himself has not earned a single paycheck since January 2007? What hard work has this individual been engaged in these past 69 months besides spending his personal fortune trying to convince American voters he deserves to be elected leader of the free world? C’mon, who’s kidding who here? I haven’t worked full-time in any academic position since my spinal injury in November 2006; applying Mr. Romney’s logic, I’m qualified to be Penn State’s next president.
Now, don’t get me wrong... Even as a staunch Democrat, I do see merit in many of Mr. Romney’s points. I do agree that our nation’s economic recovery has been too slow, that we need a LOT of new jobs, and good-paying jobs, in order to stimulate the economy, that the goal of every individual citizen should be personal responsibility and accomplishment, and that the fruits of your own labor taste a lot sweeter than if handed to you on the basis of bureaucratic technicality. And, yes, I do agree that lazy people indeed exist within our society, but my definition of “lazy” may be significantly different from “lazy” defined by angry white America.
I don’t, however, agree that the private sector is any more important or special than the public sector (and vice-versa). I don’t see why our economy can’t grow and thrive with job expansion by both sectors. I don’t agree that our nation is the hope of the world, nor do I agree that our economy is the envy of the world, because that arrogantly presumes every other country in the world is shit (pardon my language), and I do think that reflects well on a great country... Not the greatest country, but a great country. Most importantly, a paycheck may bring a sense of pride and accomplishment, but it’s not the ultimate measure of achievement or work. A paycheck in itself represents currency and purchasing power, and right now there are too many Americans “earning” paychecks of minimal currency and little purchasing power. How much pride people feel when the worth of their paycheck represents a choice between food on the table or gas in the car or any number of basic necessities is something I seriously doubt Mr. Romney comprehends or empathizes with, and that raises some serious philosophical questions about “work” and “paycheck.”
For example, I don’t earn one penny for writing this blog column, nor have I ever sought payment for my columns, but any of my columns represent work to me as I engage my mind and hands. In fact, it’s hard work and physically painful and exhausting, even with the benefit of a morphine pump surgically implanted inside my abdomen. When I can complete a column and see that it’s cohesive and coherent, I take pride and consider it one more accomplishment, albeit small, in my life. Yes, as meaningless as my columns may seem to the world, each new column is a small victory for me, keeping me alive and engaged one more day.
Do my columns stimulate the economy? Heck, I’m not even sure they stimulate my readership; it’s not like feedback comes back to me with regularity. But I hope a column stimulates thinking by a few folks and perhaps encourages folks to check out my books and buy them. It’s not a lot, but the royalties do constitute income, income I ultimately reinvest into my life and self-sustenance, my ongoing work and advocacy efforts, my health care, and our economy... Oh! And that income ultimately counts towards my federal income tax return.
Returning to Mr. Romney’s rhetoric about lazy people — i.e., moochers — the 47 percent who don’t pay federal income taxes and represent some undesirable segment of the American electorate, or at least Mitt Romney’s version of the American electorate still having a legal right to vote. We know exactly whom Mr. Romney thinks he’s referring to when he serves sociocultural red meat to the hoi-polloi of Boca Raton. He thinks he’s using slick code language to refer to the stereotypical low-income, racial minorities of the Welfare State, or any Norman Lear sitcom from the 1970s... Too unskilled to employ, too lazy to motivate or elevate, and too eager to accept public housing, food stamps, Medicaid and any other “freebies” the government is handing out. And that’s the key component in Mitt Romney’s vision of a broken America... The hand-out, the one-way flow of taxpayer dollars from bureaucracy to society’s dregs, slackers, and losers. Is it no wonder pundits like David Brooks and Chris Matthews view Mr. Romney as a real-life version of Thurston B. Howell from “Gilligan’s Island”? As I’ve opined many times before, is it no wonder peasants marched upon King Louis XVI’s castle with torches and pitchforks during the French Revolution?
Sorry to burst the arrogant bubble of people at the top of our nation’s pyramid, but their DNA is no better than anyone else’s, including yours and mine. Whether I’m disabled or able-bodied, employed in academia or making my efforts from home, I still consider myself an equal member of the human race and American society, no matter how many rich nitwits think they could buy and sell me a thousand times over. President Obama and First-Lady Michelle Obama both reminded us last month from the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, that the size of our paychecks is meaningless compared to the jobs we do to earn those paychecks. Anybody can make lots of money, but not everybody can make a positive contribution to society. People like Mitt Romney’s crowd in Boca Raton, however, equate money with human value, not because money helps the world, but because money enhances their private corner of the world. Does this sound like the worldview of a person aspiring to be president for 100 percent of Americans?
What’s so amazing about Mr. Romney’s offensive verbalizations is that his wife of 42 years deals with Multiple Sclerosis, and Mr. Romney gives a considerable amount of charity through the Mormon church. How do such personal experiences and practices correspond to such empathy tone-deafness? Some folks argue that Mr. Romney is a “compassionate conservative” trapped in a presidential candidate campaigning as a “severe conservative.” While there may be merit to that assessment, I suspect Mr. Romney is no different than many 21st century Americans in the sense that Mr. Romney’s empathy is limited to his localized universe. In other words, he has at least sixty years of experience interacting with and recognizing a very small and privileged segment of our global population, so why should he suddenly care beyond that segment simply on the basis of their existence? It’s not like they existed before in his personal universe, did they?
And that’s sort of a common shortcoming we all have as Americans or global citizens. We’re so conditioned to concepts of “charity begins at home”, “take care of your own”, and “strength within the community” that we often forget there will always, unfortunately, be human beings without homes, or without anyone taking care of them, or who aren’t part of a community. We forget that human suffering is sometimes entrenched or long-term, and whatever our assistance efforts, they’re too short-term or cosmetic relative to very complex needs. We forget that suffering, sadly, always exists all over the world.
And yet we text donations to the Red Cross after a natural disaster, thinking our contribution in response to a hurricane covers our “humanity credit” for any earthquakes or tsunamis. It’s neither easy nor fair. We can’t realistically text the ideal level of donation every time natural disasters occur, because disasters usually outpace our monetary generosity, unless we simply think nickel and dime pledging makes a genuine impact. We wonder if it’s acceptable to reach a statute of limitations or threshold on sympathy. It’s human nature to get impatient with all the “bad stuff” in our world, right? Perhaps, but it’s not necessarily the most positive reflection on us, is it? Then again, most of us are not highly public celebrities or aspiring national leaders, so we get more leeway than very wealthy and public people like Mr. Romney.
I can give Mr. Romney a limited benefit of the doubt, given his wife’s battle with MS. Perhaps it’s an unfair imposition to expect him to care about every MS patient in the world, or every person dealing with a neurological condition. After all, he’s living with an MS patient every day, and we can assume he’s doing his part on behalf of his wife. The same can be said regarding anything else he already donates charity towards. He donates to his own house of worship in order to help others suffering a spectrum of medical ills. We don’t specifically know how many individual “causes” Mr. Romney’s charitable donations serve; we only know how much money is donated according to his federal income tax returns.
In a way, aren’t we all caring about the world in similar ways? Do we donate for every cause, or do we pick and choose where we can make the most impact? Do we donate to all houses of worship or just our own? Limiting our contributions doesn’t make us selfish hypocrites, but ignoring, discounting or denigrating the suffering of others barely beyond the tip of one’s nose does. There’s a fundamental difference between saying “gee, I wish I was able to help more” and “I really don’t worry or care about them.” It’s unrealistic to expect any President of the United States to be able to help everybody in need, but it’s not unrealistic to expect a President of the United States to want to help everybody in need.
Mr. Romney brands President Obama as “The Food Stamp President.” Have the number of Americans seeking and qualifying for public assistance increased since the 2008 election? Yes, it has. Do racial minorities constitute the majority of Americans qualifying for public assistance? No, they don’t, despite Mr. Romney’s desire to use racial minorities as poster children for public assistance and a convenient wedge issue to alarm wealthy white Americans. Are Food Stamps even the largest federal expenditure among “entitlement” programs? No, not by a long shot. According to the United States Office of Management and Budget, in 2011, Food Stamps and other nutrition program benefits accounted for $96 billion, the sixth-largest expenditure, behind Social Security ($725B), Medicare ($480B), Medicaid ($275B), Federal employee retirement ($124B), and unemployment insurance ($117B), and just ahead of veterans benefits ($71B).
What do these expenditures mean? Poverty and starvation demand approximately seven times less of our federal resources compared to simply being a senior citizen and retired. In fact, the annual budget expenditure for people age 65 and older (i.e., Social Security and Medicare, combined) represents more than three times the annual budget expenditure for poverty (i.e., Food Stamps and Medicaid, combined). Unless I’m mistaken, senior citizens represent one of Mr. Romney’s better supporting voter groups. Ironically, this voter group represents nearly one-fifth of the Americans Mr. Romney considers moochers. Is this an example of biting the hand that feeds you? It certainly seems an odd way of appreciating a vital voting constituency.
Who makes up the remainder of Mr. Romney’s moochers? Poor people, whether they’re employed or not; poverty is a bureaucratic classification based on annual income and size of your household. What many people overlook is that college students employed for the purpose of funding their education can fall into this category as well as members of our nation’s armed forces serving abroad to protect our rights and freedom. So, not only is Mr. Romney spitting on elderly voters, he’s spreading — no, make that redistributing -- the spit towards young voters who are new election process participants and the majority of absentee voters rising life for the rest of us. Golly, that’s gratitude for us, isn’t it?
Unless I’m mistaken, yet again, most Americans are eligible for Social Security and Medicare on the basis of years of employment, earning a paycheck, and paying into this safety net system through payroll withholdings. I’m under 65, yet receive Social Security and Medicare benefits on the basis of being permanently disabled and having paid into the system for 32 years of employment. Does this make me a moocher? My being non-employed is not voluntary. I’d certainly rather be back at a university full-time, doing what I did for 25 years prior to my spinal injury: teaching, helping young adults mature intellectually, and contributing to the growth of my academic community.
According to my 2011 federal income tax returns, I had an Adjusted Gross Income of $12,248 and paid $1,449 in federal income taxes, an effective tax rate of almost 12 percent, quite comparable to Mr. Romney’s. So, am I among the mooching 47 percent or the acceptable 53 percent? It’s not so clear-cut to me... I’m no longer employed on the basis of disability, I receive Social Security and Medicare benefits, I also receive $30/month in Food Stamps as well as other forms of public assistance towards utility bills, AND I pay federal income taxes, yet I’m likely a moocher in Mr. Romney’s view because I depend on the government to provide me money to house myself, feed myself, bathe and clothe myself, transport myself to medical providers, and keep myself alive. Do I expect these governmental benefits? Yes, I do. After 32 years of hard work and service, I should be able to live safely and comfortably — not regally — without having to wonder if my basic needs are being met on a monthly basis. The sobering reality is that my basic needs are not being met, because what I receive from the government isn’t enough to cover all my basic needs. Basic needs are not luxuries, and if politicians are telling us Social Security and Medicare recipients are living in luxury, they clearly haven’t visited me. There’s no perpetual money tree in my back yard, nor am I in possession of a winning lottery ticket yet to be cashed. I live check to check, just like a growing number of Americans exhausting funds to maintain the basics, wondering if groceries or medications will be a luxury. This is a reality Mr. Romney and his supporters cannot comprehend, because they’ve never lived life without a safety net or foundation. Mr. Romney has managed to enjoy and maintain a very lavish lifestyle in spite of being unemployed since January 2007. If he and his supporters can live this way, they’re unable to understand or tolerate people who can’t. They’re offended by the mere existence of people who can’t and propose socioeconomic engineering designed to elicit apology from people who have been repeatedly decimated by the Great Recession and other circumstances.
Ask yourselves: is Mitt Romney’s America ever going to help the decimated people reach a full recovery? No, it won’t, because everyone will need support just to regain an economic floor to build from, and Mr. Romney fails to understand why so many people lack that floor to begin with.
If Mr. Romney expecting some sort of apology from me, he’ll have a long wait. I can’t apologize for circumstances I never created, nor can I apologize for being in difficult circumstances. That’s as ridiculous an expectation as demanding apology from a child for contracting a cold, or an elderly person for aging. We’re not machines that never get sick or injured. We don’t live life in bubble wrap. But we clearly have a man running for President after years of living in his own bubble. With absolutely no apologies to Mr. Romney and his constituency of wealthy bigots, our nation was founded on the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and those inalienable rights belong to everyone, not just those supporting the political aspirations of Mitt Romney or his socioeconomic class.
The sad irony is that my vote was still open and available to Mr. Romney a few months ago, before he decided to alienate every last person not of his ilk. Yes, I entertained the thought of voting for Mr. Romney, but not anymore. Am I better off than I was four years ago? It depends on the criteria contextualizing that question, but in the grand scheme of how my life has evolved since 2008, I’d have to say life overall in 2012 is significantly better. That hardly means I’m satisfied, and I was open to what Mr. Romney had to say and offer, which ultimately has been squat with a side order of insult.
In a democratic society, it’s really not my place to advise or influence anyone else’s vote. Everyone should vote honestly and according to their own view and values. Speaking only for myself, and as an example of what Mitt Romney considers wrong with America, I cannot, in good conscience, vote for him... Not because he’s wealthy. Not because his primary agenda involves preserving wealth among the wealthy. Not even because he considers people like me an example of what’s wrong for America’s economic future. I cannot vote for him because he sees no value or place for me in his vision of America’s economic future, and as someone living life from a wheelchair who believes life from a wheelchair can still have meaning, value and contributable worth, this is a deal-breaker when it comes to electing our nation’s president. One cannot see forward or see possibilities when your head is hidden so far up your ass.
Well, Governor Pot, meet Coach Kettle...
Speaking of hypocrisy, heads up asses and the inability to see forward, I introduce you all to Tampa Bay Buccaneers head coach Greg Schiano, formerly the head football coach at Rutgers University. Coach Schiano’s a classic “Jersey guy”... In fact, for those who are not big sports fans, the best way to describe Coach Schiano is to imagine what Governor Chris Christie would be like after Weight Watchers.
In case you didn’t know, Coach Schiano had a rather heated difference of opinion with New York Giants head coach Tom Coughlin after the conclusion of this past Sunday’s game at MetLife Stadium. To summarize the salient points, Schiano’s Bucs blew a 27-13 lead and lost 41-34, courtesy of Giants quarterback Eli Manning’s 510 yards passing and three touchdown passes. On the final play of the game, with five seconds left, Manning took the snap from center to complete a kneel down play and run out the clock. Either hoping for some incredible miracle or acting out frustration, Schiano ordered his defensive linemen to fire out towards the Giants offensive linemen and try to create a fumble during the snap exchange. No fumble resulted, but a few Giants linemen fell backwards into Manning and knocked him on his back while he was already on one knee. Since the “extra contact” with the quarterback came from guys on his own team, hitting Manning wasn’t illegal, event though it wasn’t exactly kosher. In other words, an “unwritten rule” was violated, sort of the equivalent to assassinating someone after a cease-fire order.
As a former football player, not to mention former Buccaneer, I’m not going to debate the pros and cons of unwritten rules, because I do see merit to both sides of the argument regarding the play in question. However, I am going to state my opinion regarding the aftermath that ensued between Schiano and Coughlin. In short, Schiano acted like an ass towards Coughlin during post-game interactions as well as towards the media during his press conference, and whatever positive message Schiano intended regarding a change in how the Buccaneers play competitive football, he completely negated it with total disregard for player safety.
Ah... Player safety, that ominous term hovering over the NFL like a litigation albatross. Yes, while the NFL braces itself for the class action suit of all time regarding post-career neurological damage, here comes Coach Schiano and his “tough play and hard hits are part of the game” mantra. Better yet, he snidely reminds everyone that blowing into knell-down formations was a regular practice at Rutgers, and it actually resulted in successful fumble recoveries on a few occasions. Having played football against Rutgers over thirty years ago, I can honestly say that no one’ impressed with these fumble recoveries or the prowess of Rutgers football players to cause such fumbles. In other words, who cares?! It’s Rutgers! Lest I remind everyone that Coach Schiano’s predecessor in Tampa Bay was a wonderful, well-intentioned young man named Raheem Morris, the former head coach at Hofstra University (FYI: Hofstra no longer has a football program due to budgetary issues). Coach Morris had lots of spunk and tough play ideals too... And he lasted two seasons before ownership gave him a pink slip. Key point to the lesson: stuff that works at the college level doesn’t necessarily fly at the professional level, including borderline cheap shots during kneel-down plays. If you’re gonna pull that stuff on other teams, other teams will eventually return the favor and bust up your quarterback, and that’s how the NFL is often referred to as “Not for Long” when it comes to coaching careers.
Fortunately, for everyone involved, the Giants didn’t fumble or recreate the infamous 1978 “Miracle in the Meadowlands” and no player on either team suffered a significant injury. But what happens if someone did? Think for a moment what would happen if a submarining Buccaneer defensive player hit a Giant offensive lineman with enough force to go backwards into Eli Manning’s leg and break it, or tear up a knee? In a split second, the Giants season is completely changed and Manning’s career potentially ruined. Not only does this hurt the Giants on the field, it also hurts at the box office as a team without its marquee player plays the rest of the season in a half-empty stadium and on television to a fraction of loyal fans. Fewer fans at the stadium kills revenue. Fewer fans watching on TV kills ratings and network revenue. A really bad season potentially kills local business revenue in terms of selling team jerseys and other clothing items not to mention local restaurants. In fact, the only positive outcome in the event of Eli Manning suffering a season-ending injury is less traffic congestion in East Rutherford.
Look, injuries happen and are unfortunately part of the game; who better than me to tell you this. Well, guess what? Who better than Coach Schiano to tell you this as well? As irony always makes an appearance in sports, last Sunday’s game was the very first time Coach Schiano ever set foot on the field of MetLife Stadium since October 2010, when one of his own Rutgers players, Eric LeGrand, suffered a paralyzing injury while tackling a player from Army’s football team. Of all football coaches, Greg Schiano should know better than anyone about the risk of injury on a football field, and yet, this very coach showed zero sensitivity towards the safety of an opposing player, and a marquee player at that.
I’m not going to discuss Eric LeGrand’s life since his injury other than the fact that he’s become a far bigger celebrity in a wheelchair than he likely might’ve been as a football player, something that troubles me to no end. Certainly worthy of a future column, I can’t help but wonder if Eric LeGrand would be experiencing the same amount of national attention if he became paralyzed slipping on a bar of soap in the shower, or falling off a ladder, or being involved in a motor vehicle accident, or if he was playing a football game not televised by ESPN. Time may ultimately answer my nagging questions when another 20-year-old college football player fractures a cervical vertebra under less public circumstances, like recently injured Tulane defensive back Devon Walker.
Eric LeGrand’s new-found celebrity perhaps skews Coach Schiano’s perspective on injuries in football. Schiano admires LeGrand (an honorary Buccaneer, by the way) on such a grand level, gushing to the media about LeGrand’s book deals, radio gigs, TV appearances, telling the New York Daily News: “He’s really redirected his energy to his rehab and his future career.” What career?! LeGrand hadn’t even completed his junior year yet at Rutgers before he was injured; now he’s a media sensation. If Eric LeGrand never suffered an injury, he’d likely be a mid-round draft prospect at linebacker and possibly have completed his bachelors degree in communications. In other words, if it wasn’t for a very public and catastrophic injury, Eric LeGrand might be another struggling 23-year-old man trying to make the transition to adult contributor to our economy after four years of college. Eric LeGrand is the beneficiary of a sports culture that somehow became obligated to him, but I’m sure this is not the path this young man envisioned for himself at this stage of life.
That being said, Coach Schiano needs to understand that catastrophic career-ending football injuries don’t always end with a player receiving a lifetime of celebrity, attention and financial opportunity. What about Chucky Mullins who faded away in obscurity until death? How many people remember Mike Utley or Marc Buoniconti? How many people regularly see media stories about former players who recovered from paralysis, like Dennis Byrd or Adam Taliaferro? What about former athletes who are paralyzed but not as a result of football, like Tommy Urbanski? Perhaps Coach Schiano fails to understand that professional football players aren’t cheap and expendable like in the college ranks, and one major injury on a 53-man roster is more damaging to the success of a franchise than one major injury among 85 scholarship recipients. Regardless, Coach Schiano should respect the safety and well-being of every player, collegiate or professional, paid millions or merely receiving tuition and board, wearing your team’s uniform or the uniform of your opponent. Eric LeGrand’s injury supposedly affected Schiano so profoundly he still struggles for words when interviewed about it. If one young player’s injury could be that impactful, how could Schiano be so cavalier about potential injury to an opposing player? Is it because injuries matter only if suffered by your guys? Is Schiano’s sense of sportsmanship and empathy limited to his own team colors? Does Coach Schiano view NFL players through the same 47 percent prism Mitt Romney views American voters? The possible parallel is highly disturbing.
Mitt Romney can get away with such exclusionary thinking because we’ll likely never see him run for elected office as anything other than a Republican. On the other hand, Greg Schiano is a football coach, an athletic mercenary in a sport where loyalty and longevity are short-lived even though football players and coaches belong to a brotherhood created by competition. The Rutgers colors of 2011 become Buccaneer colors in 2012, and perhaps become colors of a different collegiate or professional organization in 2013, 2014 or some other year in the near future. If ever the day comes when Schiano interviews to wear the colors of the New York Giants, perhaps the organization should first inquire about his belief system regarding safety, injuries and kneel-down plays.
The world can be a much better place when we all care about each other regardless of our affiliations and beliefs.
One can think about lots of things during time away from blogging, but it’s no longer conceivable to write monstrous columns to cover all the bases and make up for lost time. So, for the sake of focus, efficiency and self-preservation, I’m going to write about one specific issue, state my thoughts and be done with it until the world hears from me again.
Well, this column’s issue addresses the intersection between stupidity and hypocrisy, one of my favorite issues to write about. Oh sure, stupidity and hypocrisy exist in so many ways, but our chat focuses on the special way foot-in-mouth disease brings out stupidity and hypocrisy in their purest forms, and what better examples of pure stupidity and hypocrisy are there than Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and Tampa Bay Buccaneers head coach Greg Schiano. Talk about hitting the Daily Double!
In case you’ve lost track of current events while agonizing over MLB divisional and wild-card races, or the eventual outcome of BountyGate, or replacement officials in the NFL, or when Tim Tebow will part the Hudson River, Governor Romney, back in May, schmoozed with aristocrats in Boca Raton, Florida at a $50,000/plate dinner. Governor Romney, unaware a hidden video camera was near his podium, decided it made sense to schmooze “off the cuff” and... Wait! You’re gonna love it!... Told a roomful of rich white Floridians that he had no use for 47 percent of the voting public, because those folks didn’t pay any federal income taxes and were irreversibly and unconditionally aligned to and voting for President Barack Obama. I know... Ain’t it a hoot?! But wait... It gets better!
Governor Romney characterized that 47 percent as “believing that they are victims... dependent upon government... Believing government has a responsibility to care for them... Believing that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it... Entitlement... Blah, blah, blah... Government should give it to them.” And as if the violins needed queuing, Governor Romney lamented: “I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” But alas, he has a change of heart during an appearance on Univision and proclaims he’s running a presidential campaign on behalf of 100 percent of Americans, whatever the hell that means at any random moment in his campaign.
Geez... If only the Hallmark Channel could produce movies so touching...
If you’ve seriously followed this train wreck of a presidential campaign since the GOP debates and primaries, you already know the former governor of Massachusetts is the epitome of contradiction, hypocrisy, and flaming rhetoric. Governor Romney is against the Affordable Health Care Act (affectionately referred to as “Obamacare”), but he created the same program for all the citizens of his state long before President Obama even ran for the Illinois state senate, and the governor apparently enjoys being known as the “Grandfather of Obamacare” when it suits his convenience.
Governor Romney believes in self-deportation of illegal immigrants, but would “like to staple a green card to every Ph.D. in the world and say ‘Come to America, we want you here.’” The governor also enjoys boasting about his Mexican-born grandfather every chance he gets, yet he’s less effusive regarding his several foreign bank accounts.
Governor Romney was dead-set against the auto industry bailout, but he loves to remind people that he owns a few General Motors vehicles and his wife drives “a couple of Cadillacs, actually.”
Governor Romney sees no use for the Environmental Protection Agency, but he likes it when “all the trees are the right height” in his home state of Michigan. Governor Romney, by the way, calls Michigan his home state, but he was governor of Massachusetts and owns homes in Florida, Utah and California.
Governor Romney “likes firing people”, but aside from his one term as governor of Massachusetts (2003-2007), he’s been perpetually unemployed longer than any individual I know. I’m curious to know what he writes for “Occupation/Profession” on his federal income tax returns... Aspiring Oligarch?! International Financier?! You figure he has to claim a creative title to reflect a personal tax rate of 13-14 percent on an annual income approaching $15 million, right?
Governor Romney accused all of his GOP primary challengers of running smear campaigns against him while his own super pac loyalists firebombed all challengers with scathing TV ads... To think folks called Arnold Swarzenegger “Governator”! And Mr. Romney will bet you 10 grand his hands were completely clean on these dirty political stunts!
Most inflaming and hypocritical of all, Governor Romney tells President Obama to take his “campaign of hate, divisiveness and class warfare back to Chicago” while spewing his own brand of hate, divisiveness and class warfare. Hate? What hate? the disingenuous governor wonders. Mr. Romney trails in most polls these days to a president categorized as “non-American, fraud, apologist, terrorist sympathizer, socialist, redistributionist...” and it likely eats at Mr. Romney, his supporters and fellow Republicans that he’s trailing a human being they deem unworthy to be more than a shoe-shiner. When a wealthy white political candidate publicly proclaims that our nation’s first multi-racial president “go back to where he came from”, only a complete idiot wouldn’t recognize that Chicago was not the first place on Mr. Romney’s mind, just like it isn’t on Sarah Palin’s mind, Donald Trump’s mind, or Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell’s mind.
President Obama doesn’t get a complete pass on things either. Despite inheriting a complete mess from the Bush-43 administration in January 2009 and working against congressional Republicans hell-bent on sending our nation down the toilet for the sake of partisanship, he hasn’t thrown enough counterpunches when opponents attacked, nor has he pushed hard enough on key reforms in order to placate opposition. Yes, it rubs me wrong that he attends $40,000/plate fundraisers in Manhattan for his re-election campaign (I guess it costs $10,000 more to entertain wealthy bigots in Boca Raton?). Yes, he could’ve done much more during his first term, but he’s done far from nothing, the modus operandi of congressional Republicans. All things considered, at least he’s tried his damnedest to be everyone’s president and keep us from completely circling the drain, and at least gets my vote for a second term to continue our painful recovery.
Somehow this election is supposed to be about our nation’s struggling economy. Mr. Romney, in a September 19 Op-Ed to USA TODAY, promises to “deliver recovery, not dependency” and “policies [that] foster mobility.” In fact, from the very first words of Mr. Romney’s Op-Ed, he states: “Since our founding, America has promoted personal responsibility, the dignity of work and the value of education. These values made our nation the hope of the earth and out economy the envy of the world. Efforts that promote hard work and personal responsibility over government dependency make America strong. When the economy is growing and Americans are working, everyone involved has a shared sense of achievement, not to mention the basic sense of pride that comes with the paycheck they earn.”
Have I missed something within this preamble to another specifics-lacking self-pontification by Mr. Romney, but are these not the words of a man who himself has not earned a single paycheck since January 2007? What hard work has this individual been engaged in these past 69 months besides spending his personal fortune trying to convince American voters he deserves to be elected leader of the free world? C’mon, who’s kidding who here? I haven’t worked full-time in any academic position since my spinal injury in November 2006; applying Mr. Romney’s logic, I’m qualified to be Penn State’s next president.
Now, don’t get me wrong... Even as a staunch Democrat, I do see merit in many of Mr. Romney’s points. I do agree that our nation’s economic recovery has been too slow, that we need a LOT of new jobs, and good-paying jobs, in order to stimulate the economy, that the goal of every individual citizen should be personal responsibility and accomplishment, and that the fruits of your own labor taste a lot sweeter than if handed to you on the basis of bureaucratic technicality. And, yes, I do agree that lazy people indeed exist within our society, but my definition of “lazy” may be significantly different from “lazy” defined by angry white America.
I don’t, however, agree that the private sector is any more important or special than the public sector (and vice-versa). I don’t see why our economy can’t grow and thrive with job expansion by both sectors. I don’t agree that our nation is the hope of the world, nor do I agree that our economy is the envy of the world, because that arrogantly presumes every other country in the world is shit (pardon my language), and I do think that reflects well on a great country... Not the greatest country, but a great country. Most importantly, a paycheck may bring a sense of pride and accomplishment, but it’s not the ultimate measure of achievement or work. A paycheck in itself represents currency and purchasing power, and right now there are too many Americans “earning” paychecks of minimal currency and little purchasing power. How much pride people feel when the worth of their paycheck represents a choice between food on the table or gas in the car or any number of basic necessities is something I seriously doubt Mr. Romney comprehends or empathizes with, and that raises some serious philosophical questions about “work” and “paycheck.”
For example, I don’t earn one penny for writing this blog column, nor have I ever sought payment for my columns, but any of my columns represent work to me as I engage my mind and hands. In fact, it’s hard work and physically painful and exhausting, even with the benefit of a morphine pump surgically implanted inside my abdomen. When I can complete a column and see that it’s cohesive and coherent, I take pride and consider it one more accomplishment, albeit small, in my life. Yes, as meaningless as my columns may seem to the world, each new column is a small victory for me, keeping me alive and engaged one more day.
Do my columns stimulate the economy? Heck, I’m not even sure they stimulate my readership; it’s not like feedback comes back to me with regularity. But I hope a column stimulates thinking by a few folks and perhaps encourages folks to check out my books and buy them. It’s not a lot, but the royalties do constitute income, income I ultimately reinvest into my life and self-sustenance, my ongoing work and advocacy efforts, my health care, and our economy... Oh! And that income ultimately counts towards my federal income tax return.
Returning to Mr. Romney’s rhetoric about lazy people — i.e., moochers — the 47 percent who don’t pay federal income taxes and represent some undesirable segment of the American electorate, or at least Mitt Romney’s version of the American electorate still having a legal right to vote. We know exactly whom Mr. Romney thinks he’s referring to when he serves sociocultural red meat to the hoi-polloi of Boca Raton. He thinks he’s using slick code language to refer to the stereotypical low-income, racial minorities of the Welfare State, or any Norman Lear sitcom from the 1970s... Too unskilled to employ, too lazy to motivate or elevate, and too eager to accept public housing, food stamps, Medicaid and any other “freebies” the government is handing out. And that’s the key component in Mitt Romney’s vision of a broken America... The hand-out, the one-way flow of taxpayer dollars from bureaucracy to society’s dregs, slackers, and losers. Is it no wonder pundits like David Brooks and Chris Matthews view Mr. Romney as a real-life version of Thurston B. Howell from “Gilligan’s Island”? As I’ve opined many times before, is it no wonder peasants marched upon King Louis XVI’s castle with torches and pitchforks during the French Revolution?
Sorry to burst the arrogant bubble of people at the top of our nation’s pyramid, but their DNA is no better than anyone else’s, including yours and mine. Whether I’m disabled or able-bodied, employed in academia or making my efforts from home, I still consider myself an equal member of the human race and American society, no matter how many rich nitwits think they could buy and sell me a thousand times over. President Obama and First-Lady Michelle Obama both reminded us last month from the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, that the size of our paychecks is meaningless compared to the jobs we do to earn those paychecks. Anybody can make lots of money, but not everybody can make a positive contribution to society. People like Mitt Romney’s crowd in Boca Raton, however, equate money with human value, not because money helps the world, but because money enhances their private corner of the world. Does this sound like the worldview of a person aspiring to be president for 100 percent of Americans?
What’s so amazing about Mr. Romney’s offensive verbalizations is that his wife of 42 years deals with Multiple Sclerosis, and Mr. Romney gives a considerable amount of charity through the Mormon church. How do such personal experiences and practices correspond to such empathy tone-deafness? Some folks argue that Mr. Romney is a “compassionate conservative” trapped in a presidential candidate campaigning as a “severe conservative.” While there may be merit to that assessment, I suspect Mr. Romney is no different than many 21st century Americans in the sense that Mr. Romney’s empathy is limited to his localized universe. In other words, he has at least sixty years of experience interacting with and recognizing a very small and privileged segment of our global population, so why should he suddenly care beyond that segment simply on the basis of their existence? It’s not like they existed before in his personal universe, did they?
And that’s sort of a common shortcoming we all have as Americans or global citizens. We’re so conditioned to concepts of “charity begins at home”, “take care of your own”, and “strength within the community” that we often forget there will always, unfortunately, be human beings without homes, or without anyone taking care of them, or who aren’t part of a community. We forget that human suffering is sometimes entrenched or long-term, and whatever our assistance efforts, they’re too short-term or cosmetic relative to very complex needs. We forget that suffering, sadly, always exists all over the world.
And yet we text donations to the Red Cross after a natural disaster, thinking our contribution in response to a hurricane covers our “humanity credit” for any earthquakes or tsunamis. It’s neither easy nor fair. We can’t realistically text the ideal level of donation every time natural disasters occur, because disasters usually outpace our monetary generosity, unless we simply think nickel and dime pledging makes a genuine impact. We wonder if it’s acceptable to reach a statute of limitations or threshold on sympathy. It’s human nature to get impatient with all the “bad stuff” in our world, right? Perhaps, but it’s not necessarily the most positive reflection on us, is it? Then again, most of us are not highly public celebrities or aspiring national leaders, so we get more leeway than very wealthy and public people like Mr. Romney.
I can give Mr. Romney a limited benefit of the doubt, given his wife’s battle with MS. Perhaps it’s an unfair imposition to expect him to care about every MS patient in the world, or every person dealing with a neurological condition. After all, he’s living with an MS patient every day, and we can assume he’s doing his part on behalf of his wife. The same can be said regarding anything else he already donates charity towards. He donates to his own house of worship in order to help others suffering a spectrum of medical ills. We don’t specifically know how many individual “causes” Mr. Romney’s charitable donations serve; we only know how much money is donated according to his federal income tax returns.
In a way, aren’t we all caring about the world in similar ways? Do we donate for every cause, or do we pick and choose where we can make the most impact? Do we donate to all houses of worship or just our own? Limiting our contributions doesn’t make us selfish hypocrites, but ignoring, discounting or denigrating the suffering of others barely beyond the tip of one’s nose does. There’s a fundamental difference between saying “gee, I wish I was able to help more” and “I really don’t worry or care about them.” It’s unrealistic to expect any President of the United States to be able to help everybody in need, but it’s not unrealistic to expect a President of the United States to want to help everybody in need.
Mr. Romney brands President Obama as “The Food Stamp President.” Have the number of Americans seeking and qualifying for public assistance increased since the 2008 election? Yes, it has. Do racial minorities constitute the majority of Americans qualifying for public assistance? No, they don’t, despite Mr. Romney’s desire to use racial minorities as poster children for public assistance and a convenient wedge issue to alarm wealthy white Americans. Are Food Stamps even the largest federal expenditure among “entitlement” programs? No, not by a long shot. According to the United States Office of Management and Budget, in 2011, Food Stamps and other nutrition program benefits accounted for $96 billion, the sixth-largest expenditure, behind Social Security ($725B), Medicare ($480B), Medicaid ($275B), Federal employee retirement ($124B), and unemployment insurance ($117B), and just ahead of veterans benefits ($71B).
What do these expenditures mean? Poverty and starvation demand approximately seven times less of our federal resources compared to simply being a senior citizen and retired. In fact, the annual budget expenditure for people age 65 and older (i.e., Social Security and Medicare, combined) represents more than three times the annual budget expenditure for poverty (i.e., Food Stamps and Medicaid, combined). Unless I’m mistaken, senior citizens represent one of Mr. Romney’s better supporting voter groups. Ironically, this voter group represents nearly one-fifth of the Americans Mr. Romney considers moochers. Is this an example of biting the hand that feeds you? It certainly seems an odd way of appreciating a vital voting constituency.
Who makes up the remainder of Mr. Romney’s moochers? Poor people, whether they’re employed or not; poverty is a bureaucratic classification based on annual income and size of your household. What many people overlook is that college students employed for the purpose of funding their education can fall into this category as well as members of our nation’s armed forces serving abroad to protect our rights and freedom. So, not only is Mr. Romney spitting on elderly voters, he’s spreading — no, make that redistributing -- the spit towards young voters who are new election process participants and the majority of absentee voters rising life for the rest of us. Golly, that’s gratitude for us, isn’t it?
Unless I’m mistaken, yet again, most Americans are eligible for Social Security and Medicare on the basis of years of employment, earning a paycheck, and paying into this safety net system through payroll withholdings. I’m under 65, yet receive Social Security and Medicare benefits on the basis of being permanently disabled and having paid into the system for 32 years of employment. Does this make me a moocher? My being non-employed is not voluntary. I’d certainly rather be back at a university full-time, doing what I did for 25 years prior to my spinal injury: teaching, helping young adults mature intellectually, and contributing to the growth of my academic community.
According to my 2011 federal income tax returns, I had an Adjusted Gross Income of $12,248 and paid $1,449 in federal income taxes, an effective tax rate of almost 12 percent, quite comparable to Mr. Romney’s. So, am I among the mooching 47 percent or the acceptable 53 percent? It’s not so clear-cut to me... I’m no longer employed on the basis of disability, I receive Social Security and Medicare benefits, I also receive $30/month in Food Stamps as well as other forms of public assistance towards utility bills, AND I pay federal income taxes, yet I’m likely a moocher in Mr. Romney’s view because I depend on the government to provide me money to house myself, feed myself, bathe and clothe myself, transport myself to medical providers, and keep myself alive. Do I expect these governmental benefits? Yes, I do. After 32 years of hard work and service, I should be able to live safely and comfortably — not regally — without having to wonder if my basic needs are being met on a monthly basis. The sobering reality is that my basic needs are not being met, because what I receive from the government isn’t enough to cover all my basic needs. Basic needs are not luxuries, and if politicians are telling us Social Security and Medicare recipients are living in luxury, they clearly haven’t visited me. There’s no perpetual money tree in my back yard, nor am I in possession of a winning lottery ticket yet to be cashed. I live check to check, just like a growing number of Americans exhausting funds to maintain the basics, wondering if groceries or medications will be a luxury. This is a reality Mr. Romney and his supporters cannot comprehend, because they’ve never lived life without a safety net or foundation. Mr. Romney has managed to enjoy and maintain a very lavish lifestyle in spite of being unemployed since January 2007. If he and his supporters can live this way, they’re unable to understand or tolerate people who can’t. They’re offended by the mere existence of people who can’t and propose socioeconomic engineering designed to elicit apology from people who have been repeatedly decimated by the Great Recession and other circumstances.
Ask yourselves: is Mitt Romney’s America ever going to help the decimated people reach a full recovery? No, it won’t, because everyone will need support just to regain an economic floor to build from, and Mr. Romney fails to understand why so many people lack that floor to begin with.
If Mr. Romney expecting some sort of apology from me, he’ll have a long wait. I can’t apologize for circumstances I never created, nor can I apologize for being in difficult circumstances. That’s as ridiculous an expectation as demanding apology from a child for contracting a cold, or an elderly person for aging. We’re not machines that never get sick or injured. We don’t live life in bubble wrap. But we clearly have a man running for President after years of living in his own bubble. With absolutely no apologies to Mr. Romney and his constituency of wealthy bigots, our nation was founded on the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and those inalienable rights belong to everyone, not just those supporting the political aspirations of Mitt Romney or his socioeconomic class.
The sad irony is that my vote was still open and available to Mr. Romney a few months ago, before he decided to alienate every last person not of his ilk. Yes, I entertained the thought of voting for Mr. Romney, but not anymore. Am I better off than I was four years ago? It depends on the criteria contextualizing that question, but in the grand scheme of how my life has evolved since 2008, I’d have to say life overall in 2012 is significantly better. That hardly means I’m satisfied, and I was open to what Mr. Romney had to say and offer, which ultimately has been squat with a side order of insult.
In a democratic society, it’s really not my place to advise or influence anyone else’s vote. Everyone should vote honestly and according to their own view and values. Speaking only for myself, and as an example of what Mitt Romney considers wrong with America, I cannot, in good conscience, vote for him... Not because he’s wealthy. Not because his primary agenda involves preserving wealth among the wealthy. Not even because he considers people like me an example of what’s wrong for America’s economic future. I cannot vote for him because he sees no value or place for me in his vision of America’s economic future, and as someone living life from a wheelchair who believes life from a wheelchair can still have meaning, value and contributable worth, this is a deal-breaker when it comes to electing our nation’s president. One cannot see forward or see possibilities when your head is hidden so far up your ass.
Well, Governor Pot, meet Coach Kettle...
Speaking of hypocrisy, heads up asses and the inability to see forward, I introduce you all to Tampa Bay Buccaneers head coach Greg Schiano, formerly the head football coach at Rutgers University. Coach Schiano’s a classic “Jersey guy”... In fact, for those who are not big sports fans, the best way to describe Coach Schiano is to imagine what Governor Chris Christie would be like after Weight Watchers.
In case you didn’t know, Coach Schiano had a rather heated difference of opinion with New York Giants head coach Tom Coughlin after the conclusion of this past Sunday’s game at MetLife Stadium. To summarize the salient points, Schiano’s Bucs blew a 27-13 lead and lost 41-34, courtesy of Giants quarterback Eli Manning’s 510 yards passing and three touchdown passes. On the final play of the game, with five seconds left, Manning took the snap from center to complete a kneel down play and run out the clock. Either hoping for some incredible miracle or acting out frustration, Schiano ordered his defensive linemen to fire out towards the Giants offensive linemen and try to create a fumble during the snap exchange. No fumble resulted, but a few Giants linemen fell backwards into Manning and knocked him on his back while he was already on one knee. Since the “extra contact” with the quarterback came from guys on his own team, hitting Manning wasn’t illegal, event though it wasn’t exactly kosher. In other words, an “unwritten rule” was violated, sort of the equivalent to assassinating someone after a cease-fire order.
As a former football player, not to mention former Buccaneer, I’m not going to debate the pros and cons of unwritten rules, because I do see merit to both sides of the argument regarding the play in question. However, I am going to state my opinion regarding the aftermath that ensued between Schiano and Coughlin. In short, Schiano acted like an ass towards Coughlin during post-game interactions as well as towards the media during his press conference, and whatever positive message Schiano intended regarding a change in how the Buccaneers play competitive football, he completely negated it with total disregard for player safety.
Ah... Player safety, that ominous term hovering over the NFL like a litigation albatross. Yes, while the NFL braces itself for the class action suit of all time regarding post-career neurological damage, here comes Coach Schiano and his “tough play and hard hits are part of the game” mantra. Better yet, he snidely reminds everyone that blowing into knell-down formations was a regular practice at Rutgers, and it actually resulted in successful fumble recoveries on a few occasions. Having played football against Rutgers over thirty years ago, I can honestly say that no one’ impressed with these fumble recoveries or the prowess of Rutgers football players to cause such fumbles. In other words, who cares?! It’s Rutgers! Lest I remind everyone that Coach Schiano’s predecessor in Tampa Bay was a wonderful, well-intentioned young man named Raheem Morris, the former head coach at Hofstra University (FYI: Hofstra no longer has a football program due to budgetary issues). Coach Morris had lots of spunk and tough play ideals too... And he lasted two seasons before ownership gave him a pink slip. Key point to the lesson: stuff that works at the college level doesn’t necessarily fly at the professional level, including borderline cheap shots during kneel-down plays. If you’re gonna pull that stuff on other teams, other teams will eventually return the favor and bust up your quarterback, and that’s how the NFL is often referred to as “Not for Long” when it comes to coaching careers.
Fortunately, for everyone involved, the Giants didn’t fumble or recreate the infamous 1978 “Miracle in the Meadowlands” and no player on either team suffered a significant injury. But what happens if someone did? Think for a moment what would happen if a submarining Buccaneer defensive player hit a Giant offensive lineman with enough force to go backwards into Eli Manning’s leg and break it, or tear up a knee? In a split second, the Giants season is completely changed and Manning’s career potentially ruined. Not only does this hurt the Giants on the field, it also hurts at the box office as a team without its marquee player plays the rest of the season in a half-empty stadium and on television to a fraction of loyal fans. Fewer fans at the stadium kills revenue. Fewer fans watching on TV kills ratings and network revenue. A really bad season potentially kills local business revenue in terms of selling team jerseys and other clothing items not to mention local restaurants. In fact, the only positive outcome in the event of Eli Manning suffering a season-ending injury is less traffic congestion in East Rutherford.
Look, injuries happen and are unfortunately part of the game; who better than me to tell you this. Well, guess what? Who better than Coach Schiano to tell you this as well? As irony always makes an appearance in sports, last Sunday’s game was the very first time Coach Schiano ever set foot on the field of MetLife Stadium since October 2010, when one of his own Rutgers players, Eric LeGrand, suffered a paralyzing injury while tackling a player from Army’s football team. Of all football coaches, Greg Schiano should know better than anyone about the risk of injury on a football field, and yet, this very coach showed zero sensitivity towards the safety of an opposing player, and a marquee player at that.
I’m not going to discuss Eric LeGrand’s life since his injury other than the fact that he’s become a far bigger celebrity in a wheelchair than he likely might’ve been as a football player, something that troubles me to no end. Certainly worthy of a future column, I can’t help but wonder if Eric LeGrand would be experiencing the same amount of national attention if he became paralyzed slipping on a bar of soap in the shower, or falling off a ladder, or being involved in a motor vehicle accident, or if he was playing a football game not televised by ESPN. Time may ultimately answer my nagging questions when another 20-year-old college football player fractures a cervical vertebra under less public circumstances, like recently injured Tulane defensive back Devon Walker.
Eric LeGrand’s new-found celebrity perhaps skews Coach Schiano’s perspective on injuries in football. Schiano admires LeGrand (an honorary Buccaneer, by the way) on such a grand level, gushing to the media about LeGrand’s book deals, radio gigs, TV appearances, telling the New York Daily News: “He’s really redirected his energy to his rehab and his future career.” What career?! LeGrand hadn’t even completed his junior year yet at Rutgers before he was injured; now he’s a media sensation. If Eric LeGrand never suffered an injury, he’d likely be a mid-round draft prospect at linebacker and possibly have completed his bachelors degree in communications. In other words, if it wasn’t for a very public and catastrophic injury, Eric LeGrand might be another struggling 23-year-old man trying to make the transition to adult contributor to our economy after four years of college. Eric LeGrand is the beneficiary of a sports culture that somehow became obligated to him, but I’m sure this is not the path this young man envisioned for himself at this stage of life.
That being said, Coach Schiano needs to understand that catastrophic career-ending football injuries don’t always end with a player receiving a lifetime of celebrity, attention and financial opportunity. What about Chucky Mullins who faded away in obscurity until death? How many people remember Mike Utley or Marc Buoniconti? How many people regularly see media stories about former players who recovered from paralysis, like Dennis Byrd or Adam Taliaferro? What about former athletes who are paralyzed but not as a result of football, like Tommy Urbanski? Perhaps Coach Schiano fails to understand that professional football players aren’t cheap and expendable like in the college ranks, and one major injury on a 53-man roster is more damaging to the success of a franchise than one major injury among 85 scholarship recipients. Regardless, Coach Schiano should respect the safety and well-being of every player, collegiate or professional, paid millions or merely receiving tuition and board, wearing your team’s uniform or the uniform of your opponent. Eric LeGrand’s injury supposedly affected Schiano so profoundly he still struggles for words when interviewed about it. If one young player’s injury could be that impactful, how could Schiano be so cavalier about potential injury to an opposing player? Is it because injuries matter only if suffered by your guys? Is Schiano’s sense of sportsmanship and empathy limited to his own team colors? Does Coach Schiano view NFL players through the same 47 percent prism Mitt Romney views American voters? The possible parallel is highly disturbing.
Mitt Romney can get away with such exclusionary thinking because we’ll likely never see him run for elected office as anything other than a Republican. On the other hand, Greg Schiano is a football coach, an athletic mercenary in a sport where loyalty and longevity are short-lived even though football players and coaches belong to a brotherhood created by competition. The Rutgers colors of 2011 become Buccaneer colors in 2012, and perhaps become colors of a different collegiate or professional organization in 2013, 2014 or some other year in the near future. If ever the day comes when Schiano interviews to wear the colors of the New York Giants, perhaps the organization should first inquire about his belief system regarding safety, injuries and kneel-down plays.
The world can be a much better place when we all care about each other regardless of our affiliations and beliefs.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Fit to be tied about NFL OT rules -- Sports Thoughts for February 3, 2012
ALSO PUBLISHED AS GUEST CONTRIBUTOR FOR THE FOLLOWING BLOG SITE:
http://dunsonchecksin.com/cutting-ties-with-the-nfls-ot-rules/
As we approach Super Bowl XLVI, this recent post-season has introduced us to "non-sudden death" overtime rules, enacted by the NFL after the 2009 post-season in order to reduce the chances for a team losing in overtime by a field goal or "cheap" touchdown. What did we see this post-season, the first time to try these overtime rules out? The Denver Broncos beating the Pittsburgh Steelers on the first play of overtime in the AFC wild card round, an 80-yard touchdown pass against busted coverage, and the New York Giants punching their ticket for the Super Bowl with an overtime field goal in soggy San Francisco to win the NFC championship game over the 49ers.
Well... the league's intentions were good.
I argued this two years ago, and I'll argue it again: There was absolutely nothing wrong with post-season overtime rules, "sudden death" overtime, to begin with. What's "cheapened" overtime is using it during the regular season, something the NFL has done since 1974.
Yes, boys and girls too young to recall an NFL prior to the Pittsburgh Steelers ever winning a Super Bowl... there once was a time when NFL regular season games were only 60 minutes long, and games actually ended... in... TIES!
Well, the NFL owners didn't like ties, something about ties being like kissing your sister (hey... siblings can show affection for each other without things getting creepy) and the need to generate more fan excitement and interest. So, just like moving back the goalposts in 1973 and changing the kickoff line every decade, the owners decided 1973 would be the last season of "rampant ties" and fans going home from stadiums without having a definitive winner, even if it required an extra 15 minutes of play.
And that's how we've had "sudden death" overtime during the regular season these past 38 years.
Want to know how well it's worked, or perhaps made a significant improvement on the NFL game?
This past regular season gave us 13 overtime games, all resulting in winners. The most-frequent teams requiring overtime were the Arizona Cardinals (4 times), the Broncos and Dallas Cowboys (3 times each) -- and the Cardinals and Cowboys played each other in one overtime affair. That means that 9 of the 13 overtime games played this past season involved just three teams... three teams that all finished 8-8.
Think about it: the purpose of overtime is to yield a winner. What do we see? 69 percent of this season's overtime games involved just these three mediocre teams. These teams were mediocre with the benefit of overtime, which means that they were clearly mediocre if overtime didn't even exist. The Cardinals, Broncos and Cowboys all finished 8-8 with the benefit of overtime rules. If we turned the clock back to 1973 and played 60 minutes and not one second more, the Cardinals would've finished 4-8-4, the Broncos 5-8-3 and the Cowboys 6-7-3. Still think your teams had pretty good seasons? No... they had artificially inflated seasons because of overtime rules.
Fans might wonder if playing regular season games under pre-1974 rules impacted the divisional races and playoff seed. Believe it or not, only the AFC West would've produced a different divisional champion, the 8-6-2 San Diego Chargers. The Oakland Raiders would've finished second at 7-8-1, the Kansas City Chiefs would've finished third at 6-8-2, and the Broncos would've finished last. In fact, if we didn't have regular season overtime rules, the AFC West would've produced the same order of finish experts predicted prior to the season.
Warning to all those naive Broncos fans who think the 2011 season was the result of a divine miracle: the Broncos won their division because of luck, dumb luck, which is all regular season overtime boils down to!
In fact, with the exception of the AFC West, every other division and all other playoff seedings were completely unchanged. Heck, even the top three draft spots for 2012 are still the same: 1-Indianapolis Colts (2-14), 2-St. Louis Rams (2-13-1), 3-Minnesota Vikings (3-12-1).
The NFL played a total of 512 regular season games in 2011; 13 games required overtime. This translates to 2.5 percent of games requiring overtime. 2.5 percent is hardly anything; it's barely more than 1 percent according to OWS aficionados. So for such a small percentage, why does the NFL bother with regular season overtime, risking additional injuries to players beyond the risk of playing 60 minute games? There must be more logic than to give mediocre teams less mediocre-looking records, right?
Let's turn the clock back to 1973 and see what pre-overtime regular season records looked like then. Keep in mind that we only had 26 NFL teams and each one played a 14-game regular season. Of 364 regular season games played in 1973 there were 7 ties. SEVEN, accounting for 1.9 percent of all games played.
Which teams were the "tie kings"? The 5-7-2 Green Bay Packers, the 7-5-2 Cleveland Browns, 7-5-2 Kansas City Chiefs, and the 7-5-2 Denver Broncos (no, Tim Tebow wasn't their quarterback). It shouldn't be too surprising to know that 6 of the 7 tie games in 1973 involved either the Packers, Browns, Chiefs or Broncos, since teams that play to ties tend to play to ties with other teams that play to ties.
Got that? Good! Pop quiz at the end of this column!
Okay, so 1973 doesn't seem as tied up as 2011, does it? Perhaps tie games were a chronic problem leading up to 1973 and a decision needed to be made with expansion teams and a 16-game schedule in the future?
In 1972, 5 of 364 regular season games ended in ties, 1.4 percent of all games.
In 1971, 8 of 364 regular season games ended in ties, 2.2 percent of all games.
In 1970, 9 of 364 regular season games ended in ties, 2.7 percent of all games.
So, for the first four seasons after the AFL-NFL merger, a total of 1,456 regular season games were played, 29 ended in ties, accounting for 2.0 percent of all games. This is quite comparable to this recent season. Were any particular teams playing to tie games at a somewhat prolific rate? The Raiders finished 8-4-2 in 1970 and 1971; they played in 6 tie games during the 4-year post-merger period, 10.7 percent of 56 total games played by one team.
The Chiefs finished 7-5-2 in 1970 and 1973; they played in 5 tie games during 1970-1973, as did the Chargers (including 3 during a 5-6-3 1970 season). This accounted for 8.9 percent of games played by each team.
The Packers finished 4-8-2 in 1971 and 5-7-2 in 1973; they played in 4 tie games during 1970-1973. The Broncos also played in 4 tie games during 1970-1973, as did the New Orleans Saints (including 4-8-2 in 1971), the Philadelphia Eagles (one tie each season) and the then-St. Louis Cardinals (one tie each season). This accounted for 7.1 percent of games played by each team.
The Detroit Lions, then-Los Angeles Rams and Atlanta Falcons all played in 3 tie games during 1970-1973, accounting for 5.3 percent of games played by each team.
League-wide, tie games were relatively rare, but for 11 of the NFL's 26 teams, tie games occurred more than twice as often, and that's where the problem appeared to be. Of the 29 tie games played between 1970 and 1973, 11 teams accounted for 20 of those tie games, the same 69 percent Denver, Dallas and Arizona accounted for in 2011overtime games.
Were tie games a problem before the 1970 merger? It depends on how you look at it. During the ten seasons leading up to the merger (1960-1969), the NFL played a grand total of 2,018 regular season games - first starting with 13 teams playing a 12-game schedule, then having 16 teams playing a 14-game schedule. 48 games ended in ties, accounting for 2.4 percent of all games played.
However, the 1967 season (the first involving all 16 teams after the Saints joined as an expansion team) resulted in 9 ties, accounting for 4.0 percent of 224 games played. An amazing 6 of those tie games involved two teams, the 5-6-3 Washington Redskins and the 3-8-3 Minnesota Vikings. Two other teams, the Rams and the then-Baltimore Colts, each finished 11-1-2, but the Rams won the Coastal Division title by virtue of tying the Colts early in the season then defeating the Colts in the regular season finale, the Colts only loss of the season.
FYI: in 1963, the Chicago Bears won the NFL western divisional crown with an 11-1-2 record, besting the 11-2-1 Packers, denying Green Bay the opportunity to be the first three-peat NFL champion. That same year, the Steelers finished 7-4-3.
Three ties is the most any team has ever had during a single regular season since the 1932 Bears finished 7-1-6, the season prior to the NFL playing championship games.
During the 10-year history of the American Football League, a total of 1,204 regular season games were played, 24 ending in ties (2.0 percent of all games played). The most tie games in any single season was 5 in 1965 (4.0 percent of 112 games played by 8 teams), led by the western division champion Chargers who finished 9-2-3.
Looking at the grand scheme of things, the overall rate of overtime games in 2011 is very comparable to the rate of tie games played in the pre-merger NFL, AFL and post-merger combined NFL during 1960-1973. Has overtime necessarily changed the rate of games ending tied after 60 minutes? Not necessarily, but overtime has managed to mask mediocrity a little better compared to what we saw with teams having two or more ties during seasons of the 1960s and early 1970s. The reality is that ties and overtime games are historically more prevalent among a predominant minority of teams in any given season, and the advent of regular season overtime really hasn't eliminated the prevalent mediocrity among these teams more than forcing someone to ultimately win or lose tie games and make league standings and won-loss records more consistent looking.
That's really not reason enough for an extra quarter of play during the regular season. Let’s stop tinkering around with “sudden death” and return it to its rightful place, the NFL postseason, when losers go home. Let’s go back to the regular season rules of 1973, when games end in ties and each team has future Sundays to look towards.
http://dunsonchecksin.com/cutting-ties-with-the-nfls-ot-rules/
As we approach Super Bowl XLVI, this recent post-season has introduced us to "non-sudden death" overtime rules, enacted by the NFL after the 2009 post-season in order to reduce the chances for a team losing in overtime by a field goal or "cheap" touchdown. What did we see this post-season, the first time to try these overtime rules out? The Denver Broncos beating the Pittsburgh Steelers on the first play of overtime in the AFC wild card round, an 80-yard touchdown pass against busted coverage, and the New York Giants punching their ticket for the Super Bowl with an overtime field goal in soggy San Francisco to win the NFC championship game over the 49ers.
Well... the league's intentions were good.
I argued this two years ago, and I'll argue it again: There was absolutely nothing wrong with post-season overtime rules, "sudden death" overtime, to begin with. What's "cheapened" overtime is using it during the regular season, something the NFL has done since 1974.
Yes, boys and girls too young to recall an NFL prior to the Pittsburgh Steelers ever winning a Super Bowl... there once was a time when NFL regular season games were only 60 minutes long, and games actually ended... in... TIES!
Well, the NFL owners didn't like ties, something about ties being like kissing your sister (hey... siblings can show affection for each other without things getting creepy) and the need to generate more fan excitement and interest. So, just like moving back the goalposts in 1973 and changing the kickoff line every decade, the owners decided 1973 would be the last season of "rampant ties" and fans going home from stadiums without having a definitive winner, even if it required an extra 15 minutes of play.
And that's how we've had "sudden death" overtime during the regular season these past 38 years.
Want to know how well it's worked, or perhaps made a significant improvement on the NFL game?
This past regular season gave us 13 overtime games, all resulting in winners. The most-frequent teams requiring overtime were the Arizona Cardinals (4 times), the Broncos and Dallas Cowboys (3 times each) -- and the Cardinals and Cowboys played each other in one overtime affair. That means that 9 of the 13 overtime games played this past season involved just three teams... three teams that all finished 8-8.
Think about it: the purpose of overtime is to yield a winner. What do we see? 69 percent of this season's overtime games involved just these three mediocre teams. These teams were mediocre with the benefit of overtime, which means that they were clearly mediocre if overtime didn't even exist. The Cardinals, Broncos and Cowboys all finished 8-8 with the benefit of overtime rules. If we turned the clock back to 1973 and played 60 minutes and not one second more, the Cardinals would've finished 4-8-4, the Broncos 5-8-3 and the Cowboys 6-7-3. Still think your teams had pretty good seasons? No... they had artificially inflated seasons because of overtime rules.
Fans might wonder if playing regular season games under pre-1974 rules impacted the divisional races and playoff seed. Believe it or not, only the AFC West would've produced a different divisional champion, the 8-6-2 San Diego Chargers. The Oakland Raiders would've finished second at 7-8-1, the Kansas City Chiefs would've finished third at 6-8-2, and the Broncos would've finished last. In fact, if we didn't have regular season overtime rules, the AFC West would've produced the same order of finish experts predicted prior to the season.
Warning to all those naive Broncos fans who think the 2011 season was the result of a divine miracle: the Broncos won their division because of luck, dumb luck, which is all regular season overtime boils down to!
In fact, with the exception of the AFC West, every other division and all other playoff seedings were completely unchanged. Heck, even the top three draft spots for 2012 are still the same: 1-Indianapolis Colts (2-14), 2-St. Louis Rams (2-13-1), 3-Minnesota Vikings (3-12-1).
The NFL played a total of 512 regular season games in 2011; 13 games required overtime. This translates to 2.5 percent of games requiring overtime. 2.5 percent is hardly anything; it's barely more than 1 percent according to OWS aficionados. So for such a small percentage, why does the NFL bother with regular season overtime, risking additional injuries to players beyond the risk of playing 60 minute games? There must be more logic than to give mediocre teams less mediocre-looking records, right?
Let's turn the clock back to 1973 and see what pre-overtime regular season records looked like then. Keep in mind that we only had 26 NFL teams and each one played a 14-game regular season. Of 364 regular season games played in 1973 there were 7 ties. SEVEN, accounting for 1.9 percent of all games played.
Which teams were the "tie kings"? The 5-7-2 Green Bay Packers, the 7-5-2 Cleveland Browns, 7-5-2 Kansas City Chiefs, and the 7-5-2 Denver Broncos (no, Tim Tebow wasn't their quarterback). It shouldn't be too surprising to know that 6 of the 7 tie games in 1973 involved either the Packers, Browns, Chiefs or Broncos, since teams that play to ties tend to play to ties with other teams that play to ties.
Got that? Good! Pop quiz at the end of this column!
Okay, so 1973 doesn't seem as tied up as 2011, does it? Perhaps tie games were a chronic problem leading up to 1973 and a decision needed to be made with expansion teams and a 16-game schedule in the future?
In 1972, 5 of 364 regular season games ended in ties, 1.4 percent of all games.
In 1971, 8 of 364 regular season games ended in ties, 2.2 percent of all games.
In 1970, 9 of 364 regular season games ended in ties, 2.7 percent of all games.
So, for the first four seasons after the AFL-NFL merger, a total of 1,456 regular season games were played, 29 ended in ties, accounting for 2.0 percent of all games. This is quite comparable to this recent season. Were any particular teams playing to tie games at a somewhat prolific rate? The Raiders finished 8-4-2 in 1970 and 1971; they played in 6 tie games during the 4-year post-merger period, 10.7 percent of 56 total games played by one team.
The Chiefs finished 7-5-2 in 1970 and 1973; they played in 5 tie games during 1970-1973, as did the Chargers (including 3 during a 5-6-3 1970 season). This accounted for 8.9 percent of games played by each team.
The Packers finished 4-8-2 in 1971 and 5-7-2 in 1973; they played in 4 tie games during 1970-1973. The Broncos also played in 4 tie games during 1970-1973, as did the New Orleans Saints (including 4-8-2 in 1971), the Philadelphia Eagles (one tie each season) and the then-St. Louis Cardinals (one tie each season). This accounted for 7.1 percent of games played by each team.
The Detroit Lions, then-Los Angeles Rams and Atlanta Falcons all played in 3 tie games during 1970-1973, accounting for 5.3 percent of games played by each team.
League-wide, tie games were relatively rare, but for 11 of the NFL's 26 teams, tie games occurred more than twice as often, and that's where the problem appeared to be. Of the 29 tie games played between 1970 and 1973, 11 teams accounted for 20 of those tie games, the same 69 percent Denver, Dallas and Arizona accounted for in 2011overtime games.
Were tie games a problem before the 1970 merger? It depends on how you look at it. During the ten seasons leading up to the merger (1960-1969), the NFL played a grand total of 2,018 regular season games - first starting with 13 teams playing a 12-game schedule, then having 16 teams playing a 14-game schedule. 48 games ended in ties, accounting for 2.4 percent of all games played.
However, the 1967 season (the first involving all 16 teams after the Saints joined as an expansion team) resulted in 9 ties, accounting for 4.0 percent of 224 games played. An amazing 6 of those tie games involved two teams, the 5-6-3 Washington Redskins and the 3-8-3 Minnesota Vikings. Two other teams, the Rams and the then-Baltimore Colts, each finished 11-1-2, but the Rams won the Coastal Division title by virtue of tying the Colts early in the season then defeating the Colts in the regular season finale, the Colts only loss of the season.
FYI: in 1963, the Chicago Bears won the NFL western divisional crown with an 11-1-2 record, besting the 11-2-1 Packers, denying Green Bay the opportunity to be the first three-peat NFL champion. That same year, the Steelers finished 7-4-3.
Three ties is the most any team has ever had during a single regular season since the 1932 Bears finished 7-1-6, the season prior to the NFL playing championship games.
During the 10-year history of the American Football League, a total of 1,204 regular season games were played, 24 ending in ties (2.0 percent of all games played). The most tie games in any single season was 5 in 1965 (4.0 percent of 112 games played by 8 teams), led by the western division champion Chargers who finished 9-2-3.
Looking at the grand scheme of things, the overall rate of overtime games in 2011 is very comparable to the rate of tie games played in the pre-merger NFL, AFL and post-merger combined NFL during 1960-1973. Has overtime necessarily changed the rate of games ending tied after 60 minutes? Not necessarily, but overtime has managed to mask mediocrity a little better compared to what we saw with teams having two or more ties during seasons of the 1960s and early 1970s. The reality is that ties and overtime games are historically more prevalent among a predominant minority of teams in any given season, and the advent of regular season overtime really hasn't eliminated the prevalent mediocrity among these teams more than forcing someone to ultimately win or lose tie games and make league standings and won-loss records more consistent looking.
That's really not reason enough for an extra quarter of play during the regular season. Let’s stop tinkering around with “sudden death” and return it to its rightful place, the NFL postseason, when losers go home. Let’s go back to the regular season rules of 1973, when games end in ties and each team has future Sundays to look towards.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Does ESPN pine for the Confederacy? Oy, Let’s hope not! -- Doc’s Sports Thoughts for December 2, 2011
As December begins, all four major professional sports angle for our attention. College football teams are wrapping up regular seasons, starting conference playoffs and securing bowl invitations. The NFL regular season is heading into its homestretch, and with five weeks to go, we’re starting to see potential playoff seedings for both the AFC and NFC. Now that America is in the season of shopping and giving, underachieving college and professional football teams are processing pink slips for coaches and dreaming towards better replacements and blue-chip draft picks for next season. The NBA lockout is presumably over, giving Americans one more thing to look forward to on December 25th. The NHL season is in full bloom, including a return to action by Sidney Crosby, healthy again for the Pittsburgh Penguins. Even Major League Baseball provides us reasons to look ahead to Spring Training, with a new labor deal extension, hot stove action, and the recent hiring of Bobby Valentine by the Boston Red Sox, bringing a new managerial energy.
I start today’s column on a rather odd note, and as the title of this column suggests, something seems amiss at ESPN. For those who don’t know, ESPN, the world’s largest sports cable network, is based in Bristol, Connecticut. However, if you watch enough of ESPN programming, you’d swear or at least wonder if ESPN’s thinking process is rooted south of the Mason-Dixon Line. No, I’m not talking about NASCAR and rednecks racing cars around tracks at breakneck speeds. I’m talking about ESPN employees openly pontificating from their Good Ol’ Dixie frame of reference. The ESPN employee? Skip Bayless, a former columnist with the Dallas Morning News, now a regular talking head panelist on ESPN’s First Take, seen Monday-Friday, 10:00am-12:00noon on ESPN2.
Bayless (AKA “The Bloviator” by fellow ESPN panelist Stephen A. Smith) has been a one-man pom-pom brigade for Denver Broncos “quarterback” Tim Tebow. I place the term “quarterback” in quotes because I frankly don’t believe Tebow has the physical build, upper-body mechanics, or the thinking intellect to be a starting quarterback running today’s sophisticated NFL offensive schemes. It’s a fairly simple assessment, one I’ve made in previous columns and still stand by: Tebow is too muscle-bound, too bulky and disproportioned in his muscle mass to throw a football with consistent effectiveness as a left-handed passer. It has nothing to do with passing from the pocket or on the run but has everything to do with how his arms and legs are coordinated in his passing motion. When your first mental instinct is to always tuck the ball under your arm and run like a halfback or fullback you will always look awkward trying to throw a football left-handed. This isn’t a debate about football philosophy; it’s a fact based on anatomy, physiology and physics.
If you don’t believe me, try imitating, physically or mentally, one of your favorite right-handed baseball pitchers, past or present, with really pronounced body mechanics and wind-up: Luis Tiant, Tom Seaver, Kent Tekulve, Nolan Ryan, Dwight Gooden, Bronson Arroyo, or perhaps Mariano Rivera. Got a physical or mental feel for how these guys pitched a baseball? Now try doing it LEFT-HANDED. Let me know how many times you fall down or spin yourself dizzy into the ground. Better yet, now let’s think of some lefties with pronounced mechanics: Tug McGraw? Fernando Valenzuela? Johan Santana? Ever really watch how David Wells pitched years ago? How about observing C.C. Sabathia? Any chance a right-hander could imitate those left-handed motions?
Pitching a baseball and passing a football both work on similar mechanical principles. As a consequence of those principles, a successful left-handed quarterback’s motion generally has to be pass-first in orientation, even if he’s rolling out after taking the snap from center. Right-handed quarterbacks don’t have this same issue to battle, which is why they can still pass effectively when rolling to their opposite side. No matter which direction a right-handed quarterback rolls, he can throw a legitimate NFL-quality pass downfield. If a left-handed quarterback rolls to his right, he’s at a greater disadvantage because he has to physically adjust his body position, and arm angle, in order to throw — in other words, lefties don’t throw on the run well rolling to their opposite side.
Am I the first person to point out these things regarding Tim Tebow’s physical limitations as an NFL quarterback? No, although I might be the first to present the argument by integrating football, baseball and science. Tim Tebow has several critics, and we all making similar arguments.
But Tebow doesn’t have a supporter quite like Skip Bayless. To put it bluntly, Bayless is unabashed, nonobjective, and biased in his public support. At first I wondered if his support was simply to be the lone contrarian among the naysayers. Bayless has stated several times that he doesn’t believe Tebow will ever win a passing title or earn a Pro Bowl spot, but he firmly believes Tebow will ultimately lead the Denver Broncos to the playoffs and possibly a Super Bowl title. In other words, Bayless believes Tebow’s a winner and the Broncos will be winners with him leading them into battle. At the moment it’s hard to argue against Bayless’ predictions. The Broncos are 5-1 this season with Tebow the starting quarterback, and 6-3 going back to last season. This looks a lot better than the 4-14 record Kyle Orton (now a Kansas City Chief) compiled the past two seasons. Although Tebow completes only 45.5% of his pass attempts, he has passed for 8 touchdowns against only one interception these past six weeks, and has rushed for 455 yards and 3 touchdowns to boot. The 6-5 Broncos are only one game behind the Oakland Raiders in the AFC Western division race, as well as one game behind the Cincinnati Bengals for the final AFC wild card spot, so anything’s possible.
But simply changing quarterbacks wasn’t good enough for Bayless. No, because Tebow cannot master today’s NFL offensive schemes, Bayless demanded that head coach John Fox and Executive Vice-President of Football Operations, John Elway, the Broncos’ former Hall-of-Fame quarterback (1983-1998), completely change their offensive scheme to tailor to Tebow’s strengths, which are primarily running the ball, playing out of a hurry-up shotgun formation, and throwing passes to receivers when defenses blow coverage assignments. Because winning is the name of the game, Fox and Elway switched to an option-based scheme (AKA “wishbone” or “veer” in college football). The results speak for themselves. The Broncos are 5-1 after a 1-4 start. They run the ball more than 65% of the time. They pass only when needed or if opportunity presents itself. Is it effective? Relative to the first month of the season, yes. Relative to competing against upper-echelon NFL offenses, the jury’s still out. The Broncos have benefited from playing slog-type games against opponents that struggled against a continuously improving defense. In four games, the Broncos were within a touchdown going into the fourth quarter. Opposing defenses eventually wore down trying to stop such a run-oriented offense, and the Broncos came back to win all five games in the fourth quarter or overtime.
Okay, so what’s the problem? NFL team switches quarterback, offensive scheme, and his biggest media supporter is enjoying the biggest and most-satisfying laugh right now. Well, with Tim Tebow, nothing is simply a matter of football, because he’s a Fundamental Christian and very public and vocal about it. Nothing can be discussed with this young man, a young man I knew absolutely nothing about, nor cared about, prior to 2007, when he won the Heisman Trophy at the University of Florida. Despite having lived and worked in Florida for ten years during the 1980s and 1990s, I have very little interest in Southeastern Conference sports, and the further I’m removed from my college football days (now 30 years and counting), the less interest I have in college football, the Heisman hype, as well as the BCS system. If I watched Tim Tebow play quarterback for U-of-F more than five times prior to the 2010 NFL draft, that was a lot. But I saw enough on television to recognize his flaws at the quarterback position and recommend he not be drafted as a quarterback, and certainly not in the first round, which the Broncos did on both counts.
Contrary to Bayless’ contention that we’re all “Tebow Haters” if we have and express doubts about Tebow’s ability to play quarterback in the NFL, or are rubbed wrong by this young man’s incessant in-your-face presentation about his religious faith, I’m personally rubbed wrong by the entire Tebow package: his ability to play quarterback, his continuous interjection of Right-wing Christianity, his arrogant demands before the 2010 NFL draft that teams only draft him as a quarterback, his public inability to consider the possibility that he might have to switch positions in order to play in the NFL, the marketing machine that advised him to produce an anti-abortion commercial with his mother to be televised during the 2010 Super Bowl (before he was even drafted), the public frenzy his fans and supporters like Bayless whipped themselves into, forcing the struggling Broncos, under a new head coach and front office, to dump Orton as their quarterback, bypass experienced backup Brady Quinn, and insert a bench-riding Tebow into the starting job, change the entire offensive scheme for him, and trading off or waiving an endless list of talented receivers who didn’t feel comfortable playing with Tebow as part of a gimmick, publicity stunt, and popularity contest among fans and supporters who look to this young man as the second coming, the wondrous sign of their “Rapture”, and the great shining hope of some Bible-Belt revival meeting.
Yes, the entire package offends me as a social liberal, former football player, mature, middle-aged and accomplished adult, and as a Jewish-American. While I’ve always advocated social awareness and a sense of conviction among our professional athletes, I also expect that if one is going to spout off in public, one should be able to discuss, or be respectful of, both sides of an issue. I don’t see that attribute with Tebow or his supporters. Like all fundamentalists, their view is all or nothing, and they preach it accordingly. I’ve also advocated that our professional athletes bring some humility to the public forum when they make the transition from collegiate sports. I also don’t see that with Tebow and his supporters who seem to think starting NFL quarterback is Tebow’s divine birthright, and anyone who dare suggest a different position (e.g., running back or tight end) commits biblical blasphemy. It takes more than a lot of chutzpah to demand what your job description should be before you’ve been fully evaluated, drafted and signed by an NFL team. The NFL didn’t and never owed anything to this young man and his supporters. Team Tebow knew well in advanced the questions being raised about his ability to play quarterback. Lord knows it wasn’t and will not be the first time NFL scouts and coaches had doubts about U-of-F or SEC quarterbacks, Heisman winners or not. But Team Tebow insisted starting NFL quarterback was the Lord’s mission.
Lastly, for those who admire Tebow’s commitment to faith (and that includes me, to a limited degree), what if the quarterback’s name was Chaim Lipschitz, a rebel kid from Crown Heights who dropped out of a Yeshiva to learn about and play football at a Big East program like Rutgers? What if Rutgers had to petition to the Big East and NCAA to ensure all their games were played on Thursdays? What if Mr. Lipschitz was a bearded version of Dan Marino inside the stadium and looked like he should be working in the Diamond District outside the stadium? What if ESPN interviewed him before the draft and he started quoting from the Talmud? What if the team drafting him found out he couldn’t play for an entire month of the regular season because games conflicted with Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur and Sukkot?
And this brings us to Mr. Skip Bayless, ESPN’s version of Anne Coulter. Here’s a man who’s so blindly supportive of Tim Tebow that he actually told Stephen A. Smith during a First Take debate that Tebow was being “discriminated” against for being a running quarterback, just like Michael Vick and Vince Young. I was just as incredulous as Smith was when Bayless offered this theory. Vick and Young are African-American quarterbacks, and that’s why they were discriminated against, just like Donovan McNabb, Warren Moon, and Doug Williams were. These men weren’t discriminated because of their ability or inability to run; they were discriminated on the basis of their race and presumed lack of intellect. Now, I will go on the record and say that neither Michael Vick nor Vince Young have the intellect to be successful NFL quarterbacks like many other quarterbacks are and have been, but I also have that same assessment for Tim Tebow. Vick, Young and Tebow can’t hold a candle to McNabb or Moon, not to mention Steve Young, Joe Montana, or John Elway when it comes to intellect about the game as well as the ability to run and pass. The ability to play NFL quarterback is a function of talent and smarts, not the color of one’s skin.
That a veteran sportswriter like Bayless would even utter the notion that Tebow is some kind of persecution victim not only shows a complete lack of understanding about what “discrimination” even means, but demonstrates why our continuously evolving and diversifying nation continues to polarize worse and worse. Does Tebow represent some kind of “getting back America” mentality that white, fundamental Christians have been yammering about since the 2008 presidential election? Yes, I think there’s some element to that, but one only need to listen to more of Bayless’ “bloviating” to see something more troubling and hypocritical.
Surprisingly, Bayless advocates for Michael Vick and Vince Young as running quarterbacks, so Bayless isn’t necessarily using race as his lens, even though he doesn’t completely understand how to use race in the first place. But Bayless is not necessarily an advocate of Donovan McNabb, an African-American (and a proud and dignified one) quarterback who used to be a good runner. After McNabb was granted his release by the Minnesota Vikings yesterday, Bayless commented that McNabb was “out of shape” towards the end of his tenure with the Philadelphia Eagles, when he reported to the Washington Redskins last year (after the Eagles traded him), and when he reported to the Vikings for training camp this year. Bayless questioned McNabb’s conditioning and commitment to playing football after a 12-year NFL career. While some folks might agree with Bayless’ view and see nothing more to it, I’m not among them.
It’s no secret that as this NFL season has progressed, Bayless has been extremely vocal in his distain for Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers. Despite last season’s Super Bowl championship and this season’s 11-0 start and Rodgers statistics (127.7 QB rating, 33 TDs, 4 INTs, almost 3500 yards passing), Bayless swears by New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady (105.5 QB rating, 28 TDs, 10 INTs, over 3600 yards passing) as the Most-Valuable Player. This is highly confusing but not impossible to decipher.
We need to begin with a basic question: what does Bayless have against Aaron Rodgers in Green Bay? Well, first we must appreciate that Rodgers’ younger brother, Jordan, plays quarterback for Vanderbilt University, which happens to be Bayless’ alma mater, located in Nashville, Tennessee. Bayless thinks the world of the younger Rodgers but routinely criticizes the elder one, who went to college at the University of California-Berkeley. Rodgers was a first-round draft pick of the Packers in 2005. He spent three seasons on the bench while the Packers were quarterbacked by Brett Favre. Remember him? One day in 2008, Ol’ Brett retired to his farm in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, and Rodgers inherited the quarterback job. Then Brett changed his mind and came out of retirement. Then the Packers traded Brett to the New York Jets, and... You know the rest of the story leading up to Brett’s most-recent retired status in 2011.
Brett Favre was one of Bayless’ favorites, a good ol’ boy from the heart of Dixie. Yeah, Brett drank, raised hell and played by the seat of his pants. And, boy, Ol’ Brett sure could run around and throw like the best of them, despite his lack of self-discipline. He was the 1990s version of Bobby Layne and Buddy Parker, two redneck quarterbacks who excited fans during the 1950s. If you watched Brett play the last three years of his career, he looked rather paunchy and unconditioned wearing a Jets uniform in 2008 and a Vikings uniform in 2009 and 2010, and it showed as each season moved along from September to December. He looked old. His behavior was erratic. He looked tired. He looked beaten up. He looked washed up. He played injured, costing his teams while he padded his Hall of Fame resume. More often than not, Brett Favre came out on the right end of the scoreboard, which is one of many reasons for his eventual enshrinement in Canton. But the Packers discarded this noble Prince of the South before Brett and his fans thought the time was right, making Aaron Rodgers an enemy of the Rebel Flag.
So now we can connect some dots: Skip Bayless gushes over Brett Favre, Michael Vick, Vince Young and Tim Tebow, and even Jordan Rodgers, but not Donovan McNabb (a Chicago native who played college football for Syracuse) or Aaron Rodgers. This may be but a limited sample of Skip Bayless, but might we be shocked to go through his publishing and social media archives and see mostly positive support for quarterbacks like Phillip Rivers, Jay Cutler, the Manning brothers, the late Steve McNair, Tony Romo and Drew Brees — quarterbacks who either grew up in the South, played college football in the South, or play for Southern-state NFL teams? Might we conversely notice mostly negative support towards quarterbacks like Steve Young (Connecticut native, graduate of BYU in Utah), Mark Sanchez (Southern California native, played at USC) or even Matt Hasselbach (Massachusetts native, graduate of Boston College)?
It’s just a thought, but perhaps Skip Bayless wears more than his support of Tim Tebow on his sleeve, and is incapable of socio-political neutrality. If Bayless was specifically an employee of some southern pep squad, perhaps his blatant bias would be both understandable and acceptable, but Bayless is a journalist, and paid to maintain the standards of neutrality for a cable network that does not act in any politically-driven capacity. If Bayless’ heart is that entrenched in the heart of Dixie, then perhaps ESPN should relocate him geographically to his own private studio where his loyalties and commitment to objectivity are. Again, ask yourself how Bayless would represent ESPN if the Denver Broncos quarterback’s name was Chaim Lipschitz.
Reminder — Don’t forget my new book is available (and on sale) in both paperback and eBook (PDF) format at Lulu.com.
Contact me for further discounts or coupon information. Buy and read it because you want something to THINK about.
Philosophy of “Packer” Pedagogy:
Vince Lombardi, critical thinking and problem-based learning
I start today’s column on a rather odd note, and as the title of this column suggests, something seems amiss at ESPN. For those who don’t know, ESPN, the world’s largest sports cable network, is based in Bristol, Connecticut. However, if you watch enough of ESPN programming, you’d swear or at least wonder if ESPN’s thinking process is rooted south of the Mason-Dixon Line. No, I’m not talking about NASCAR and rednecks racing cars around tracks at breakneck speeds. I’m talking about ESPN employees openly pontificating from their Good Ol’ Dixie frame of reference. The ESPN employee? Skip Bayless, a former columnist with the Dallas Morning News, now a regular talking head panelist on ESPN’s First Take, seen Monday-Friday, 10:00am-12:00noon on ESPN2.
Bayless (AKA “The Bloviator” by fellow ESPN panelist Stephen A. Smith) has been a one-man pom-pom brigade for Denver Broncos “quarterback” Tim Tebow. I place the term “quarterback” in quotes because I frankly don’t believe Tebow has the physical build, upper-body mechanics, or the thinking intellect to be a starting quarterback running today’s sophisticated NFL offensive schemes. It’s a fairly simple assessment, one I’ve made in previous columns and still stand by: Tebow is too muscle-bound, too bulky and disproportioned in his muscle mass to throw a football with consistent effectiveness as a left-handed passer. It has nothing to do with passing from the pocket or on the run but has everything to do with how his arms and legs are coordinated in his passing motion. When your first mental instinct is to always tuck the ball under your arm and run like a halfback or fullback you will always look awkward trying to throw a football left-handed. This isn’t a debate about football philosophy; it’s a fact based on anatomy, physiology and physics.
If you don’t believe me, try imitating, physically or mentally, one of your favorite right-handed baseball pitchers, past or present, with really pronounced body mechanics and wind-up: Luis Tiant, Tom Seaver, Kent Tekulve, Nolan Ryan, Dwight Gooden, Bronson Arroyo, or perhaps Mariano Rivera. Got a physical or mental feel for how these guys pitched a baseball? Now try doing it LEFT-HANDED. Let me know how many times you fall down or spin yourself dizzy into the ground. Better yet, now let’s think of some lefties with pronounced mechanics: Tug McGraw? Fernando Valenzuela? Johan Santana? Ever really watch how David Wells pitched years ago? How about observing C.C. Sabathia? Any chance a right-hander could imitate those left-handed motions?
Pitching a baseball and passing a football both work on similar mechanical principles. As a consequence of those principles, a successful left-handed quarterback’s motion generally has to be pass-first in orientation, even if he’s rolling out after taking the snap from center. Right-handed quarterbacks don’t have this same issue to battle, which is why they can still pass effectively when rolling to their opposite side. No matter which direction a right-handed quarterback rolls, he can throw a legitimate NFL-quality pass downfield. If a left-handed quarterback rolls to his right, he’s at a greater disadvantage because he has to physically adjust his body position, and arm angle, in order to throw — in other words, lefties don’t throw on the run well rolling to their opposite side.
Am I the first person to point out these things regarding Tim Tebow’s physical limitations as an NFL quarterback? No, although I might be the first to present the argument by integrating football, baseball and science. Tim Tebow has several critics, and we all making similar arguments.
But Tebow doesn’t have a supporter quite like Skip Bayless. To put it bluntly, Bayless is unabashed, nonobjective, and biased in his public support. At first I wondered if his support was simply to be the lone contrarian among the naysayers. Bayless has stated several times that he doesn’t believe Tebow will ever win a passing title or earn a Pro Bowl spot, but he firmly believes Tebow will ultimately lead the Denver Broncos to the playoffs and possibly a Super Bowl title. In other words, Bayless believes Tebow’s a winner and the Broncos will be winners with him leading them into battle. At the moment it’s hard to argue against Bayless’ predictions. The Broncos are 5-1 this season with Tebow the starting quarterback, and 6-3 going back to last season. This looks a lot better than the 4-14 record Kyle Orton (now a Kansas City Chief) compiled the past two seasons. Although Tebow completes only 45.5% of his pass attempts, he has passed for 8 touchdowns against only one interception these past six weeks, and has rushed for 455 yards and 3 touchdowns to boot. The 6-5 Broncos are only one game behind the Oakland Raiders in the AFC Western division race, as well as one game behind the Cincinnati Bengals for the final AFC wild card spot, so anything’s possible.
But simply changing quarterbacks wasn’t good enough for Bayless. No, because Tebow cannot master today’s NFL offensive schemes, Bayless demanded that head coach John Fox and Executive Vice-President of Football Operations, John Elway, the Broncos’ former Hall-of-Fame quarterback (1983-1998), completely change their offensive scheme to tailor to Tebow’s strengths, which are primarily running the ball, playing out of a hurry-up shotgun formation, and throwing passes to receivers when defenses blow coverage assignments. Because winning is the name of the game, Fox and Elway switched to an option-based scheme (AKA “wishbone” or “veer” in college football). The results speak for themselves. The Broncos are 5-1 after a 1-4 start. They run the ball more than 65% of the time. They pass only when needed or if opportunity presents itself. Is it effective? Relative to the first month of the season, yes. Relative to competing against upper-echelon NFL offenses, the jury’s still out. The Broncos have benefited from playing slog-type games against opponents that struggled against a continuously improving defense. In four games, the Broncos were within a touchdown going into the fourth quarter. Opposing defenses eventually wore down trying to stop such a run-oriented offense, and the Broncos came back to win all five games in the fourth quarter or overtime.
Okay, so what’s the problem? NFL team switches quarterback, offensive scheme, and his biggest media supporter is enjoying the biggest and most-satisfying laugh right now. Well, with Tim Tebow, nothing is simply a matter of football, because he’s a Fundamental Christian and very public and vocal about it. Nothing can be discussed with this young man, a young man I knew absolutely nothing about, nor cared about, prior to 2007, when he won the Heisman Trophy at the University of Florida. Despite having lived and worked in Florida for ten years during the 1980s and 1990s, I have very little interest in Southeastern Conference sports, and the further I’m removed from my college football days (now 30 years and counting), the less interest I have in college football, the Heisman hype, as well as the BCS system. If I watched Tim Tebow play quarterback for U-of-F more than five times prior to the 2010 NFL draft, that was a lot. But I saw enough on television to recognize his flaws at the quarterback position and recommend he not be drafted as a quarterback, and certainly not in the first round, which the Broncos did on both counts.
Contrary to Bayless’ contention that we’re all “Tebow Haters” if we have and express doubts about Tebow’s ability to play quarterback in the NFL, or are rubbed wrong by this young man’s incessant in-your-face presentation about his religious faith, I’m personally rubbed wrong by the entire Tebow package: his ability to play quarterback, his continuous interjection of Right-wing Christianity, his arrogant demands before the 2010 NFL draft that teams only draft him as a quarterback, his public inability to consider the possibility that he might have to switch positions in order to play in the NFL, the marketing machine that advised him to produce an anti-abortion commercial with his mother to be televised during the 2010 Super Bowl (before he was even drafted), the public frenzy his fans and supporters like Bayless whipped themselves into, forcing the struggling Broncos, under a new head coach and front office, to dump Orton as their quarterback, bypass experienced backup Brady Quinn, and insert a bench-riding Tebow into the starting job, change the entire offensive scheme for him, and trading off or waiving an endless list of talented receivers who didn’t feel comfortable playing with Tebow as part of a gimmick, publicity stunt, and popularity contest among fans and supporters who look to this young man as the second coming, the wondrous sign of their “Rapture”, and the great shining hope of some Bible-Belt revival meeting.
Yes, the entire package offends me as a social liberal, former football player, mature, middle-aged and accomplished adult, and as a Jewish-American. While I’ve always advocated social awareness and a sense of conviction among our professional athletes, I also expect that if one is going to spout off in public, one should be able to discuss, or be respectful of, both sides of an issue. I don’t see that attribute with Tebow or his supporters. Like all fundamentalists, their view is all or nothing, and they preach it accordingly. I’ve also advocated that our professional athletes bring some humility to the public forum when they make the transition from collegiate sports. I also don’t see that with Tebow and his supporters who seem to think starting NFL quarterback is Tebow’s divine birthright, and anyone who dare suggest a different position (e.g., running back or tight end) commits biblical blasphemy. It takes more than a lot of chutzpah to demand what your job description should be before you’ve been fully evaluated, drafted and signed by an NFL team. The NFL didn’t and never owed anything to this young man and his supporters. Team Tebow knew well in advanced the questions being raised about his ability to play quarterback. Lord knows it wasn’t and will not be the first time NFL scouts and coaches had doubts about U-of-F or SEC quarterbacks, Heisman winners or not. But Team Tebow insisted starting NFL quarterback was the Lord’s mission.
Lastly, for those who admire Tebow’s commitment to faith (and that includes me, to a limited degree), what if the quarterback’s name was Chaim Lipschitz, a rebel kid from Crown Heights who dropped out of a Yeshiva to learn about and play football at a Big East program like Rutgers? What if Rutgers had to petition to the Big East and NCAA to ensure all their games were played on Thursdays? What if Mr. Lipschitz was a bearded version of Dan Marino inside the stadium and looked like he should be working in the Diamond District outside the stadium? What if ESPN interviewed him before the draft and he started quoting from the Talmud? What if the team drafting him found out he couldn’t play for an entire month of the regular season because games conflicted with Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur and Sukkot?
And this brings us to Mr. Skip Bayless, ESPN’s version of Anne Coulter. Here’s a man who’s so blindly supportive of Tim Tebow that he actually told Stephen A. Smith during a First Take debate that Tebow was being “discriminated” against for being a running quarterback, just like Michael Vick and Vince Young. I was just as incredulous as Smith was when Bayless offered this theory. Vick and Young are African-American quarterbacks, and that’s why they were discriminated against, just like Donovan McNabb, Warren Moon, and Doug Williams were. These men weren’t discriminated because of their ability or inability to run; they were discriminated on the basis of their race and presumed lack of intellect. Now, I will go on the record and say that neither Michael Vick nor Vince Young have the intellect to be successful NFL quarterbacks like many other quarterbacks are and have been, but I also have that same assessment for Tim Tebow. Vick, Young and Tebow can’t hold a candle to McNabb or Moon, not to mention Steve Young, Joe Montana, or John Elway when it comes to intellect about the game as well as the ability to run and pass. The ability to play NFL quarterback is a function of talent and smarts, not the color of one’s skin.
That a veteran sportswriter like Bayless would even utter the notion that Tebow is some kind of persecution victim not only shows a complete lack of understanding about what “discrimination” even means, but demonstrates why our continuously evolving and diversifying nation continues to polarize worse and worse. Does Tebow represent some kind of “getting back America” mentality that white, fundamental Christians have been yammering about since the 2008 presidential election? Yes, I think there’s some element to that, but one only need to listen to more of Bayless’ “bloviating” to see something more troubling and hypocritical.
Surprisingly, Bayless advocates for Michael Vick and Vince Young as running quarterbacks, so Bayless isn’t necessarily using race as his lens, even though he doesn’t completely understand how to use race in the first place. But Bayless is not necessarily an advocate of Donovan McNabb, an African-American (and a proud and dignified one) quarterback who used to be a good runner. After McNabb was granted his release by the Minnesota Vikings yesterday, Bayless commented that McNabb was “out of shape” towards the end of his tenure with the Philadelphia Eagles, when he reported to the Washington Redskins last year (after the Eagles traded him), and when he reported to the Vikings for training camp this year. Bayless questioned McNabb’s conditioning and commitment to playing football after a 12-year NFL career. While some folks might agree with Bayless’ view and see nothing more to it, I’m not among them.
It’s no secret that as this NFL season has progressed, Bayless has been extremely vocal in his distain for Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers. Despite last season’s Super Bowl championship and this season’s 11-0 start and Rodgers statistics (127.7 QB rating, 33 TDs, 4 INTs, almost 3500 yards passing), Bayless swears by New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady (105.5 QB rating, 28 TDs, 10 INTs, over 3600 yards passing) as the Most-Valuable Player. This is highly confusing but not impossible to decipher.
We need to begin with a basic question: what does Bayless have against Aaron Rodgers in Green Bay? Well, first we must appreciate that Rodgers’ younger brother, Jordan, plays quarterback for Vanderbilt University, which happens to be Bayless’ alma mater, located in Nashville, Tennessee. Bayless thinks the world of the younger Rodgers but routinely criticizes the elder one, who went to college at the University of California-Berkeley. Rodgers was a first-round draft pick of the Packers in 2005. He spent three seasons on the bench while the Packers were quarterbacked by Brett Favre. Remember him? One day in 2008, Ol’ Brett retired to his farm in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, and Rodgers inherited the quarterback job. Then Brett changed his mind and came out of retirement. Then the Packers traded Brett to the New York Jets, and... You know the rest of the story leading up to Brett’s most-recent retired status in 2011.
Brett Favre was one of Bayless’ favorites, a good ol’ boy from the heart of Dixie. Yeah, Brett drank, raised hell and played by the seat of his pants. And, boy, Ol’ Brett sure could run around and throw like the best of them, despite his lack of self-discipline. He was the 1990s version of Bobby Layne and Buddy Parker, two redneck quarterbacks who excited fans during the 1950s. If you watched Brett play the last three years of his career, he looked rather paunchy and unconditioned wearing a Jets uniform in 2008 and a Vikings uniform in 2009 and 2010, and it showed as each season moved along from September to December. He looked old. His behavior was erratic. He looked tired. He looked beaten up. He looked washed up. He played injured, costing his teams while he padded his Hall of Fame resume. More often than not, Brett Favre came out on the right end of the scoreboard, which is one of many reasons for his eventual enshrinement in Canton. But the Packers discarded this noble Prince of the South before Brett and his fans thought the time was right, making Aaron Rodgers an enemy of the Rebel Flag.
So now we can connect some dots: Skip Bayless gushes over Brett Favre, Michael Vick, Vince Young and Tim Tebow, and even Jordan Rodgers, but not Donovan McNabb (a Chicago native who played college football for Syracuse) or Aaron Rodgers. This may be but a limited sample of Skip Bayless, but might we be shocked to go through his publishing and social media archives and see mostly positive support for quarterbacks like Phillip Rivers, Jay Cutler, the Manning brothers, the late Steve McNair, Tony Romo and Drew Brees — quarterbacks who either grew up in the South, played college football in the South, or play for Southern-state NFL teams? Might we conversely notice mostly negative support towards quarterbacks like Steve Young (Connecticut native, graduate of BYU in Utah), Mark Sanchez (Southern California native, played at USC) or even Matt Hasselbach (Massachusetts native, graduate of Boston College)?
It’s just a thought, but perhaps Skip Bayless wears more than his support of Tim Tebow on his sleeve, and is incapable of socio-political neutrality. If Bayless was specifically an employee of some southern pep squad, perhaps his blatant bias would be both understandable and acceptable, but Bayless is a journalist, and paid to maintain the standards of neutrality for a cable network that does not act in any politically-driven capacity. If Bayless’ heart is that entrenched in the heart of Dixie, then perhaps ESPN should relocate him geographically to his own private studio where his loyalties and commitment to objectivity are. Again, ask yourself how Bayless would represent ESPN if the Denver Broncos quarterback’s name was Chaim Lipschitz.
Reminder — Don’t forget my new book is available (and on sale) in both paperback and eBook (PDF) format at Lulu.com.
Contact me for further discounts or coupon information. Buy and read it because you want something to THINK about.
Philosophy of “Packer” Pedagogy:
Vince Lombardi, critical thinking and problem-based learning
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
No Longer Penn State Proud -- Doc’s Sports Thoughts for November 8, 2011
Most folks know my doctoral degree is from Penn State University. If you didn’t, now you do. I used to be very proud of that degree. I worked long and hard for it under challenging circumstances, and was extremely proud that my PhD came from a world-class university that everyone recognized. As of a few days ago I ceased being proud — not of the degree, but from where it was earned.
Many of us know the mind-boggling news out of Happy Valley, that a sexual abuse scandal has existed on Penn State’s campus, specifically within its lauded football program, for the better part of two decades. I’m too sickened by the details to write them in a column, so I’ll leave things at this: if the allegations (and we all need to keep in mind that these are still allegations, not convictions in a Court of Law) against former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky are true, the moral stench from the mountains of central Pennsylvania extends from more than Sandusky, athletic director Tim Curley, and another administrator, Gary Schultz. The stench comes from legendary head coach Joe Paterno, university president Graham Spanier, assistant coach Mike McQueary, and even a couple of janitors who saw evil but didn’t speak up about it after a 2000 incident.
Let’s start from the top: Graham Spanier sold his soul to the devil to return to Penn State and become its 16th president in 1995 after a previous tenure in Happy Valley between 1973 and 1982. He had a distinguished record. He was even the founding editor of the Journal of Family Issues, ironically. I was in the final leg of my PhD work when Spanier interviewed for his current job. It didn’t take many folks long to figure out he’d do anything to get the job. Now he’s sitting in his office trying to figure out how to hang onto his job. If — and that’s the key word for the moment, given where the legal process is -- Sandusky, Curley and Schultz are convicted or cop a plea in court, Spanier’s head needs to roll, because this all took place under his watch and the buck needs to stop at the president’s desk. Spanier is no longer a spring chicken; he’s in his mid-sixties, has been an educator for nearly forty years. He’s already at the summit of his career, comfortable and possibly governing on autopilot after all these years. If Spanier has been aware of Sandusky’s alleged antics since the beginning of his presidency, his office and position is now a lot less comfortable with nowhere to hide.
Everyone knows the stellar coaching career of Joe Paterno, an icon for 46 years who put Penn State on everyone’s map. Never mind the fact that Penn State has had its share of Nobel Prize winners among the faculty; Paterno’s football program brought big-time recognition to the American masses. Cries for his graceful retirement have existed for at least a dozen years, but at approximately 85 years old, Coach Paterno continues his winning tradition. Unfortunately, his record for a clean program is now irrevocably dirtied, not by players, booster money or agents, but by one of his former assistant coaches. No matter how the legal proceedings play out, Paterno is toast and this is really the final straw for those advocating his removal. At 85 years old, he’s been through enough and served the university enough, but in some ways he’s failed at serving his university and community on a much different level. Yes, football is “God” at major universities like Penn State. I understand and appreciate the mentality because I played college football too, but for a team Penn State routinely trounces on Saturdays.
I’ve met Paterno on a few occasions during my adult life, as both a player on an opposing college team thirty years ago and as a doctoral student teaching physics courses and tutoring for the athletic department nearly twenty years ago. Each encounter was positive; he always struck me as a nice man who cared about students and academics. But football and Paterno aren’t G-d, and Paterno needs to step down at the end of the season and allow a total housecleaning of the football program and athletic department.
What about McQueary? As a graduate student assistant, meaning he was already a college graduate and legal adult, he allegedly witnessed a 2002 shower rape by Sandusky, didn’t stop it, didn’t try to interfere with it, or protect the little boy being assaulted. But he ran home to his father and reported what he saw to him and Paterno. Paterno went to Curley. We all somewhat know the rest of the story from other newspaper articles or news stories written far better than my column.
What about the janitors who saw something in 2000? What about then-Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar, who never filed charges against Sandusky after a reported incident and investigation in 1998?
Right now no one’s talking on the record. Sandusky is under a gag order by his own attorneys. The typical Tuesday press conference Paterno has before football games was first scheduled for this afternoon but with limits as to the scope of questions and topics Paterno would address. Then the press conference is canceled without Paterno’s approval. Then reports come out that Paterno would step down immediately. Now we hear he’ll remain head coach for the foreseeable future. Given his age and the circumstances, it’s probably wise for Paterno not to meet with the press during a media feeding frenzy. But something really isn’t passing the “smell test” as everyone relevant to this story has clammed up on the Penn State campus. Even during the Watergate scandal, President Nixon’s administration issued daily public denials until the roof caved in from the mounting evidence. Paterno needs to make a public statement because this alleged abuse took place within his football kingdom. Spanier needs to make a public statement because this alleged abuse took place on his campus. Yes, the legal process may warrant a gag order among the Penn State higher-ups, but this isn’t just any scandal or criminal case. Paterno and Spanier need to come out of hiding and speak up. Neither man has the luxury of time to circle the wagons and get their stories straight. There are too many inflamed wounds across the nation and national sports scene to give Paterno and Spanier time to work with spin doctors, not after the allegations that they’ve had at least fifteen years to prepare for the court of public opinion. I want to hear what both of them have to say. I want to believe this story doesn’t stink all the way to the top of this university. I want to allow the legal process to play itself out to completion, but today I have a hard time believing anything coming out of this particular alma mater.
Aside from the sickening details of this story, what nauseates me most is how the child protection laws in Pennsylvania theoretically allow Paterno, Spanier, McQueary, Gricar, the unnamed janitors, and any other number of adults off the hook for Sandusky’s alleged criminal behavior. What did adults know and when did they know anything? Who did they report things to? Did they report things enough to as many state agencies or entities as possible? Right now we don’t know, but we do know this: according to Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly, Paterno and other adults are not necessarily people of interest or under investigation because they “met the minimal criteria” with respect to the law’s obligation for reporting child abuse. I repeat that again... met the minimal criteria.
I’m sorry, but I’ve never been a big fan of meeting minimal criteria, or being “sufficiently adequate” when it comes to anything beyond how I cook my own meals and clean my home (once you use a wheelchair and walker, some standards get a little lax). To me, this is the biggest crime of the entire criminal story. Why? Because if you can get by with meeting minimal criteria with respect to protection of children, what else can we get away with meeting minimal criteria for? Protection of the old, sick, disabled, racial or ethnic minorities, members of the GLBT community, the poor, not to mention anyone else vulnerable to the whims of our cold society?
For the time being, we all have to keep this scandal in perspective because a legal process needs to play out. However, we are working with the limited knowledge that McQueary and Paterno went through their “chain of command” and supposedly did their legal parts. Okay, maybe that’s the right way to do things at a large state university with incredible layers of bureaucracy and regulations to deal with, but we all feel in our bones that something doesn’t seem right. None of us is really in a position to be the moralist on protocol, least of all me, but one’s values need to be questioned when we hear “Met the minimal criteria... Said something to somebody... Did all I needed or could do.”
Did McQueary and Paterno do enough? Shouldn’t they have gone beyond the insulated walls of Penn State’s campus? Are they able to really live with their decisions to this very day? Can either or both of these men look straight in their mirrors and say “I did enough. I did my best. I couldn’t have done anything more”? I don’t know how either man can without blinking or turning away from the mirror, do you? In a sport where players are taught to play through the final whistle, you don’t tell anyone you met any minimal criteria or did all you needed or could do until everyone sees the final scoreboard. I’m left wondering if McQueary and Paterno walked off to the proverbial locker room long before halftime of this story.
Beyond the questions about McQueary’s and Paterno’s limited actions, we must ask why Sandusky retired at age 55 in 1999 when most Penn State football fans presumed he would be Paterno’s successor, why Sandusky was retired but still allowed to hold his Second-Mile camps on Penn State property, why Sandusky was allowed to be around young boys after being investigated for the first allegations of sexual misconduct, and why Sandusky wasn’t a pariah and unwelcomed at the campus after the 2002 incident McQueary and Paterno reported. Sandusky’s been under investigation in one form or another since 1998. Maybe Penn State wanted to wash its hands of Sandusky, but it didn’t really do a thorough job in retrospect, did it? Sandusky and his alleged problems never disappeared, leaving a lasting stain.
The more we read various news articles and the grand jury report available on the internet, the more we wonder if McQueary, Paterno, Curley, Schultz and Spanier, as well as Gricar and nameless janitors and other Penn State employees, were more worried about their own jobs and careers than these alleged abuse victims. Think about it... Just who the hell is Jerry Sandusky in the grand scheme of things? Yes, he was the man who guided Penn State’s defense to great achievement on the gridiron, but was he that powerful a person that all of the aforementioned people would fear him and his retribution if they went forward to local and state authorities? Sandusky’s an alleged, and now indicted, sexual predator, and all of these people enabled him, embraced him, protected him — Sandusky, not the kids whose lives are irrevocably damaged.
What gives? Sure, we know sexual pedophilia exists all over the world. This isn’t limited to State College or rural Pennsylvania. It goes on all over the United States, independent of geography, size of town or community, socio-economic status, race or ethnicity, or religion. The Catholic Church protected pedophile priests. Orthodox Jewish yeshivas protected pedophile rabbis. I’m sure it goes on with fundamental Christians, Muslims and Hindus too. The late tennis star and humanitarian Arthur Ashe once said “everyone needs someone to beat up on.” It shouldn’t be that way but people in power and the “haves” in our Orwellian world need powerless and “have-nots” in order to thrive. Without others to demoralize life isn’t worth living for some people, because there aren’t carcasses underneath to support their self-imposed pedestal. Pedophilia isn’t love, folks; it’s cruelty and a sick need to lord over others when nothing else justifies the pedophile’s status in his or her food chain.
It seems that McQueary, Paterno, Curley, Schultz, Spanier, Gricar and others all worried about their own bacon first, the mode of self-preservation. These allegedly abuse boys were collateral damage for the greater good of Penn State and Nittany Lion football. McQueary was just starting out his coaching career, so perhaps he didn’t want to do anything to kill his career before it ever got underway. How was he rewarded? He’s now a full-time, full-fledged and well-paid assistant coach for one of the nation’s biggest football programs. What happens if and when Penn State cleans house? How toxic will McQueary be on the job market in 2012? How many college football programs will honestly be willing to interview or hire him, much less any of Paterno’s long-time assistants? Could McQueary find employment in the NFL? I’d be reluctant to hire him, given how much outreach work the NFL does with schools and children across the United States. What about the Canadian League? Ha! Pedophiles are viewed even worse north of the border. Aside from the alleged victims, McQueary is the only named witness to these alleged acts. We could ask if McQueary had everything to gain by his limited actions and being stage one of a massive cover-up, or we could ask if McQueary had an axe to grind against Sandusky and made up the whole story. Could McQueary be part of an extensive scheme with a bunch of kids to ruin Sandusky? Why don’t we know the identities of the unnamed janitors, also alleged witnesses? Either way, McQueary seems to be someone who really wanted to have a coaching career at Penn State.
Paterno was well into his coaching legacy. Why risk it over a pedophile scandal? Spanier just took over the job of his lifetime in 1995. He sure as hell didn’t want to do anything to risk losing it. Gricar’s no longer a DA. Curley’s soon to be no longer an AD. Schultz and the rest of these folks will eventually become nameless details as time goes by. But just like Nixon’s gang at the end of Watergate, the Penn State royal circle will all eventually fall on the sword in one way or another.
But what doesn’t make sense is that no one made Sandusky simply disappear for good, leave State College, Centre County and possibly the state of Pennsylvania. He was allowed to remain. This makes no sense. As a former professor, I’ve seen university employees, especially faculty, chased from campuses for lesser reasons.
If the legal process plays out and we ultimately learn that Sandusky was completely innocent, that all these allegations were concocted as a means to push him off the coaching staff, then we have to give credit to all these people who stood by Sandusky and didn’t completely excommunicate him. But too many things would have to take place in order for such a scheme to work, and I shudder to think Mike McQueary was the mastermind behind a giant hoax for the sake of getting his own foot in the door of Paterno’s coaching staff.
If the legal process plays out and we ultimately learn that Sandusky was indeed guilty of everything, and all of these other Penn State employees coordinated a massive cover-up, not only should all heads roll and house be cleaned, we need to know exactly what Mike McQueary’s motivations were after witnessing the alleged events of 2002, why he, Paterno, Curley, Spanier and all these other adults did as little as they could to rectify the situation, and more importantly, what special hold did Jerry Sandusky have on everyone else that they allowed a pedophile to continue business as usual in their presence. Shame on them all.
Just like everyone, I’m guilty of an endless list of things I’m not proud of, perhaps even ashamed of. Today I have something else to be ashamed of, my association with Penn State.
Reminder — Don’t forget my new book is available (and on sale) in both paperback and eBook (PDF) format at Lulu.com.
Philosophy of “Packer” Pedagogy:
Vince Lombardi, critical thinking and problem-based learning
Many of us know the mind-boggling news out of Happy Valley, that a sexual abuse scandal has existed on Penn State’s campus, specifically within its lauded football program, for the better part of two decades. I’m too sickened by the details to write them in a column, so I’ll leave things at this: if the allegations (and we all need to keep in mind that these are still allegations, not convictions in a Court of Law) against former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky are true, the moral stench from the mountains of central Pennsylvania extends from more than Sandusky, athletic director Tim Curley, and another administrator, Gary Schultz. The stench comes from legendary head coach Joe Paterno, university president Graham Spanier, assistant coach Mike McQueary, and even a couple of janitors who saw evil but didn’t speak up about it after a 2000 incident.
Let’s start from the top: Graham Spanier sold his soul to the devil to return to Penn State and become its 16th president in 1995 after a previous tenure in Happy Valley between 1973 and 1982. He had a distinguished record. He was even the founding editor of the Journal of Family Issues, ironically. I was in the final leg of my PhD work when Spanier interviewed for his current job. It didn’t take many folks long to figure out he’d do anything to get the job. Now he’s sitting in his office trying to figure out how to hang onto his job. If — and that’s the key word for the moment, given where the legal process is -- Sandusky, Curley and Schultz are convicted or cop a plea in court, Spanier’s head needs to roll, because this all took place under his watch and the buck needs to stop at the president’s desk. Spanier is no longer a spring chicken; he’s in his mid-sixties, has been an educator for nearly forty years. He’s already at the summit of his career, comfortable and possibly governing on autopilot after all these years. If Spanier has been aware of Sandusky’s alleged antics since the beginning of his presidency, his office and position is now a lot less comfortable with nowhere to hide.
Everyone knows the stellar coaching career of Joe Paterno, an icon for 46 years who put Penn State on everyone’s map. Never mind the fact that Penn State has had its share of Nobel Prize winners among the faculty; Paterno’s football program brought big-time recognition to the American masses. Cries for his graceful retirement have existed for at least a dozen years, but at approximately 85 years old, Coach Paterno continues his winning tradition. Unfortunately, his record for a clean program is now irrevocably dirtied, not by players, booster money or agents, but by one of his former assistant coaches. No matter how the legal proceedings play out, Paterno is toast and this is really the final straw for those advocating his removal. At 85 years old, he’s been through enough and served the university enough, but in some ways he’s failed at serving his university and community on a much different level. Yes, football is “God” at major universities like Penn State. I understand and appreciate the mentality because I played college football too, but for a team Penn State routinely trounces on Saturdays.
I’ve met Paterno on a few occasions during my adult life, as both a player on an opposing college team thirty years ago and as a doctoral student teaching physics courses and tutoring for the athletic department nearly twenty years ago. Each encounter was positive; he always struck me as a nice man who cared about students and academics. But football and Paterno aren’t G-d, and Paterno needs to step down at the end of the season and allow a total housecleaning of the football program and athletic department.
What about McQueary? As a graduate student assistant, meaning he was already a college graduate and legal adult, he allegedly witnessed a 2002 shower rape by Sandusky, didn’t stop it, didn’t try to interfere with it, or protect the little boy being assaulted. But he ran home to his father and reported what he saw to him and Paterno. Paterno went to Curley. We all somewhat know the rest of the story from other newspaper articles or news stories written far better than my column.
What about the janitors who saw something in 2000? What about then-Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar, who never filed charges against Sandusky after a reported incident and investigation in 1998?
Right now no one’s talking on the record. Sandusky is under a gag order by his own attorneys. The typical Tuesday press conference Paterno has before football games was first scheduled for this afternoon but with limits as to the scope of questions and topics Paterno would address. Then the press conference is canceled without Paterno’s approval. Then reports come out that Paterno would step down immediately. Now we hear he’ll remain head coach for the foreseeable future. Given his age and the circumstances, it’s probably wise for Paterno not to meet with the press during a media feeding frenzy. But something really isn’t passing the “smell test” as everyone relevant to this story has clammed up on the Penn State campus. Even during the Watergate scandal, President Nixon’s administration issued daily public denials until the roof caved in from the mounting evidence. Paterno needs to make a public statement because this alleged abuse took place within his football kingdom. Spanier needs to make a public statement because this alleged abuse took place on his campus. Yes, the legal process may warrant a gag order among the Penn State higher-ups, but this isn’t just any scandal or criminal case. Paterno and Spanier need to come out of hiding and speak up. Neither man has the luxury of time to circle the wagons and get their stories straight. There are too many inflamed wounds across the nation and national sports scene to give Paterno and Spanier time to work with spin doctors, not after the allegations that they’ve had at least fifteen years to prepare for the court of public opinion. I want to hear what both of them have to say. I want to believe this story doesn’t stink all the way to the top of this university. I want to allow the legal process to play itself out to completion, but today I have a hard time believing anything coming out of this particular alma mater.
Aside from the sickening details of this story, what nauseates me most is how the child protection laws in Pennsylvania theoretically allow Paterno, Spanier, McQueary, Gricar, the unnamed janitors, and any other number of adults off the hook for Sandusky’s alleged criminal behavior. What did adults know and when did they know anything? Who did they report things to? Did they report things enough to as many state agencies or entities as possible? Right now we don’t know, but we do know this: according to Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly, Paterno and other adults are not necessarily people of interest or under investigation because they “met the minimal criteria” with respect to the law’s obligation for reporting child abuse. I repeat that again... met the minimal criteria.
I’m sorry, but I’ve never been a big fan of meeting minimal criteria, or being “sufficiently adequate” when it comes to anything beyond how I cook my own meals and clean my home (once you use a wheelchair and walker, some standards get a little lax). To me, this is the biggest crime of the entire criminal story. Why? Because if you can get by with meeting minimal criteria with respect to protection of children, what else can we get away with meeting minimal criteria for? Protection of the old, sick, disabled, racial or ethnic minorities, members of the GLBT community, the poor, not to mention anyone else vulnerable to the whims of our cold society?
For the time being, we all have to keep this scandal in perspective because a legal process needs to play out. However, we are working with the limited knowledge that McQueary and Paterno went through their “chain of command” and supposedly did their legal parts. Okay, maybe that’s the right way to do things at a large state university with incredible layers of bureaucracy and regulations to deal with, but we all feel in our bones that something doesn’t seem right. None of us is really in a position to be the moralist on protocol, least of all me, but one’s values need to be questioned when we hear “Met the minimal criteria... Said something to somebody... Did all I needed or could do.”
Did McQueary and Paterno do enough? Shouldn’t they have gone beyond the insulated walls of Penn State’s campus? Are they able to really live with their decisions to this very day? Can either or both of these men look straight in their mirrors and say “I did enough. I did my best. I couldn’t have done anything more”? I don’t know how either man can without blinking or turning away from the mirror, do you? In a sport where players are taught to play through the final whistle, you don’t tell anyone you met any minimal criteria or did all you needed or could do until everyone sees the final scoreboard. I’m left wondering if McQueary and Paterno walked off to the proverbial locker room long before halftime of this story.
Beyond the questions about McQueary’s and Paterno’s limited actions, we must ask why Sandusky retired at age 55 in 1999 when most Penn State football fans presumed he would be Paterno’s successor, why Sandusky was retired but still allowed to hold his Second-Mile camps on Penn State property, why Sandusky was allowed to be around young boys after being investigated for the first allegations of sexual misconduct, and why Sandusky wasn’t a pariah and unwelcomed at the campus after the 2002 incident McQueary and Paterno reported. Sandusky’s been under investigation in one form or another since 1998. Maybe Penn State wanted to wash its hands of Sandusky, but it didn’t really do a thorough job in retrospect, did it? Sandusky and his alleged problems never disappeared, leaving a lasting stain.
The more we read various news articles and the grand jury report available on the internet, the more we wonder if McQueary, Paterno, Curley, Schultz and Spanier, as well as Gricar and nameless janitors and other Penn State employees, were more worried about their own jobs and careers than these alleged abuse victims. Think about it... Just who the hell is Jerry Sandusky in the grand scheme of things? Yes, he was the man who guided Penn State’s defense to great achievement on the gridiron, but was he that powerful a person that all of the aforementioned people would fear him and his retribution if they went forward to local and state authorities? Sandusky’s an alleged, and now indicted, sexual predator, and all of these people enabled him, embraced him, protected him — Sandusky, not the kids whose lives are irrevocably damaged.
What gives? Sure, we know sexual pedophilia exists all over the world. This isn’t limited to State College or rural Pennsylvania. It goes on all over the United States, independent of geography, size of town or community, socio-economic status, race or ethnicity, or religion. The Catholic Church protected pedophile priests. Orthodox Jewish yeshivas protected pedophile rabbis. I’m sure it goes on with fundamental Christians, Muslims and Hindus too. The late tennis star and humanitarian Arthur Ashe once said “everyone needs someone to beat up on.” It shouldn’t be that way but people in power and the “haves” in our Orwellian world need powerless and “have-nots” in order to thrive. Without others to demoralize life isn’t worth living for some people, because there aren’t carcasses underneath to support their self-imposed pedestal. Pedophilia isn’t love, folks; it’s cruelty and a sick need to lord over others when nothing else justifies the pedophile’s status in his or her food chain.
It seems that McQueary, Paterno, Curley, Schultz, Spanier, Gricar and others all worried about their own bacon first, the mode of self-preservation. These allegedly abuse boys were collateral damage for the greater good of Penn State and Nittany Lion football. McQueary was just starting out his coaching career, so perhaps he didn’t want to do anything to kill his career before it ever got underway. How was he rewarded? He’s now a full-time, full-fledged and well-paid assistant coach for one of the nation’s biggest football programs. What happens if and when Penn State cleans house? How toxic will McQueary be on the job market in 2012? How many college football programs will honestly be willing to interview or hire him, much less any of Paterno’s long-time assistants? Could McQueary find employment in the NFL? I’d be reluctant to hire him, given how much outreach work the NFL does with schools and children across the United States. What about the Canadian League? Ha! Pedophiles are viewed even worse north of the border. Aside from the alleged victims, McQueary is the only named witness to these alleged acts. We could ask if McQueary had everything to gain by his limited actions and being stage one of a massive cover-up, or we could ask if McQueary had an axe to grind against Sandusky and made up the whole story. Could McQueary be part of an extensive scheme with a bunch of kids to ruin Sandusky? Why don’t we know the identities of the unnamed janitors, also alleged witnesses? Either way, McQueary seems to be someone who really wanted to have a coaching career at Penn State.
Paterno was well into his coaching legacy. Why risk it over a pedophile scandal? Spanier just took over the job of his lifetime in 1995. He sure as hell didn’t want to do anything to risk losing it. Gricar’s no longer a DA. Curley’s soon to be no longer an AD. Schultz and the rest of these folks will eventually become nameless details as time goes by. But just like Nixon’s gang at the end of Watergate, the Penn State royal circle will all eventually fall on the sword in one way or another.
But what doesn’t make sense is that no one made Sandusky simply disappear for good, leave State College, Centre County and possibly the state of Pennsylvania. He was allowed to remain. This makes no sense. As a former professor, I’ve seen university employees, especially faculty, chased from campuses for lesser reasons.
If the legal process plays out and we ultimately learn that Sandusky was completely innocent, that all these allegations were concocted as a means to push him off the coaching staff, then we have to give credit to all these people who stood by Sandusky and didn’t completely excommunicate him. But too many things would have to take place in order for such a scheme to work, and I shudder to think Mike McQueary was the mastermind behind a giant hoax for the sake of getting his own foot in the door of Paterno’s coaching staff.
If the legal process plays out and we ultimately learn that Sandusky was indeed guilty of everything, and all of these other Penn State employees coordinated a massive cover-up, not only should all heads roll and house be cleaned, we need to know exactly what Mike McQueary’s motivations were after witnessing the alleged events of 2002, why he, Paterno, Curley, Spanier and all these other adults did as little as they could to rectify the situation, and more importantly, what special hold did Jerry Sandusky have on everyone else that they allowed a pedophile to continue business as usual in their presence. Shame on them all.
Just like everyone, I’m guilty of an endless list of things I’m not proud of, perhaps even ashamed of. Today I have something else to be ashamed of, my association with Penn State.
Reminder — Don’t forget my new book is available (and on sale) in both paperback and eBook (PDF) format at Lulu.com.
Philosophy of “Packer” Pedagogy:
Vince Lombardi, critical thinking and problem-based learning
Saturday, October 15, 2011
It’s time for Jets to shut up and play football! -- Doc’s Sports Thoughts for October 16, 2011
Remember the good old days, April 2010, to be exact? The Jets had just pulled off a steal of a trade with the Pittsburgh Steelers for wide receiver Santonio Holmes, the MVP of Super Bowl XLIII, for a fifth-round draft choice. Despite Holmes’ off-field baggage, lots of Jets fans were excited at the prospect of quarterback Mark Sanchez having a game-breaker to throw passes to. Yes, Holmes was a great addition to the Jets passing attack. Yes, we’ll fondly recall his spectacular game-breaking and game-winning plays in 2010 against the Denver Broncos, Cleveland Browns, Detroit Lions, Houston Texans, and the New England Patriots, especially that touchdown catch in Foxborough during the Jets 28-21 AFC divisional playoff win. Yes, having Holmes back this year with a new five-year contract gave us all reason for hope of bigger and better things.
Well, so far this season, the only thing bigger seems to be Holmes’ mouth, quite possibly in direct proportion to his paycheck, and the only thing better seems to be that Jets fans will have Holmes for a full 16-game season, as opposed to 12 games last year (he was suspended for the first four games of 2010 for violating the NFL conduct policy).
Here we are, entering just the sixth game of the season, and Holmes has not once, but twice, shot off his big mouth to the press, complaining about how the Jets offense is not playing up to his standards as one of the team captains. More specifically, he has called out his quarterback and the offensive line as not doing their jobs well enough to give him the opportunities he apparently deserves in order to shine as a star and playmaker. In other words, if the line blocked better, Sanchez would be passing better, and Holmes would not only have better personal statistics but more highlight appearances on SportsCenter... Oh, and the Jets wouldn’t be a mediocre 2-3 going into Monday night’s home game against the 0-4 Miami Dolphins.
Twice, Holmes has been rebuked, first by the legendary Joe Namath, and now by Pro Bowl caliber right guard Brandon Moore. Namath called out Holmes for potentially creating a schism in the locker room. Moore made it unequivocally clear that Holmes is indeed creating division and dissention within the Jets locker room, and that’s not how a team captain is supposed to operate. Namath and Moore are absolutely right in scolding Holmes. Two of the many unwritten rules of professionalism in sports are: Dirty laundry stays inside the locker room, and Don’t throw teammates under the bus when the team is struggling. Holmes is definitely guilty of both and deserving of a court-marshal as one of the Jets team captains.
I’ve read as much as everyone else and listened to as much as everyone else on this nonsense, and don’t need any more newspapers, radio shows and television shows to tell me the Jets are in a funk, and nobody in Jets Nation needed Santonio Holmes’ yammering about it. In the grand scheme of things, perhaps Holmes’ yammering will end up being an insignificant blip of white noise, but at the present time, six weeks into a season already shaped by a lockout, truncated training camp and preseason, and salary-cap restrictions, Holmes’ big mouth has added to considerable stress and aggravation within the Jets locker room. To say Holmes’ comments to the media have been extremely unhelpful for the team is the season’s biggest understatement so far.
Yes, the Jets are 2-3. Yes, the Jets are riding a three-game losing streak, going 0-3 on a road trip through Oakland, Baltimore, and New England. Yes, the Jets are struggling on both offense and defense, giving up big plays, making too many mistakes, and committing too many penalties. Yes, the offense has yet to find its rushing attack, rushing-passing balance, and consistency with its passing game. Yes, the offensive line has been banged-up and isn’t blocking up to its usual level. Yes, Mark Sanchez has been very inconsistent connecting with his receivers. Yes, playmakers like Holmes have yet to put up big statistics so far.
But we’re only entering the sixth week of the season, the Raiders, Ravens and Patriots are hardly pushovers (the Ravens and Patriots are considered by many as preseason Super Bowl favorites), three-game losing streaks aren’t necessarily impossible to overcome, and there really isn’t any crime in losing on the road. If one objectively looked at the Jets regular season schedule once the lockout ended, one really shouldn’t be shocked the Jets are only 2-3. In fact, an objective Jets fan would’ve expected 3-2 to be a reasonably decent start, given their recent three-game road trip. More importantly, only the most cockeyed of Jets fans would’ve expected Gang Green to have a 2011 record of 13-3 or better. Most experts and realists figured the Jets to be 11-5 (same as last season) or possibly 12-4, so somewhere along the season we all expected the Jets to lose three games. Well, those three losses are now on the books. Perhaps it’s better those three losses come in September and October, rather than in November and December?
Should we completely disregard those three losses and not worry about what we saw over the past three weeks? No, of course not. The Jets lost three games against AFC opponents, three teams all potentially battling the Jets for playoff spots in December, when tiebreakers could be critical. The Jets looked flat and a step behind against the Raiders, reminding us that speed is important and the Jets don’t have as much speed on their roster as desired. The Jets offense looked entirely overmatched against the Ravens (then again, so did the Steelers in the season opener, and Pittsburgh played in last year’s Super Bowl), reminding us that a healthy offensive line is paramount when going against an aggressive defense. The Jets offense struggled on first and third downs against the Patriots suspect defense, reminding us that if you can’t keep Tom Brady off the field, eventually he and his offensive mates will wear down and kill any defense. There were lots of little things not to like about the Jets three-game losing streak and how it transpired. However, there were no major things taking place to hint at a team completely incapable of being in the hunt for a playoff spot and that elusive Super Bowl berth. There are things to fix, and fixed these things will eventually be, because head coach Rex Ryan, and his entire coaching staff, have found ways to fix things en route to the previous two AFC championship games and one step short of the Super Bowl.
And how “bad” is the offense doing — i.e., how much is Mark Sanchez holding back the offense with his regressive play? Let’s get something straight: Sanchez’s stats are not much different than many other AFC quarterbacks. Sanchez has completed 97 of 173 passes, a 56 percent completion percentage. Granted, this isn’t exactly the 68 percent by Tom Brady, but it’s better than the 49.3 percent by Baltimore’s Joe Flacco and not far behind the 59.8 percent by Houston’s Matt Schaub. By the way, the Ravens are 3-1 and the Texans are 3-2, the Texans play at Baltimore this afternoon, and neither team is running away from the AFC pack so far.
After five games, Sanchez has thrown 8 touchdowns and 5 interceptions. Only Brady, Schaub, the Buffalo Bills Ryan Fitzpatrick, and Matt Hasselbeck of the Tennessee Titans have passed for more TDs. The Patriots and Bills are both 4-1, and the Titans are 3-2. Let it also be stated that Brady has already thrown 6 picks after five games, Schaub has thrown 5, as has Matt Cassel of the Kansas City Chiefs. Supposed elite AFC quarterbacks Ben Roethlisberger of the Steelers and Phillip Rivers of the San Diego Chargers have thrown seven and six interceptions, respectively, already. The Steelers are 3-2; the Chargers are 4-1. The bottom line is that Sanchez’s statistics aren’t glaringly different from many other AFC quarterbacks, quarterbacks held in higher regard and for teams considered more successful than the Jets so far. In fact, it looks like even the best of the best are having their off-moments, not too surprising for a season where everyone started out of synch after the lockout ended.
In fact, going into this weekend, 14 of 32 NFL teams are either 2-3, 2-2, or 3-2. In other words, almost half the league is within a game of .500 at the one-third mark of the season. This means at least half the league’s teams are still considered “in the hunt” for the playoffs with 10 or 11 games left to play. The Jets are among those “in the hunt” teams. However, given the annual hype since Rex Ryan became head coach, the Jets are expected to dominate, not simply be in the hunt. Well, if being in the hunt is below par, I can think of worse positions to be in after five weeks. Yes, the Jets could and perhaps should be playing better at this stage of the season, but they could be doing worse, and there are indeed a handful of teams who are playing considerably worse than the Jets. Maybe we should all count the Jets blessings instead of their omissions from the SportsCenter highlights list. It’s a shame Santonio Holmes can’t keep things in perspective, but then again, who knows how many times he has himself starting on his NFL fantasy team?
It’s bad enough inflated expectations have Jets fans flying off the handle and calling into radio stations as if the sky is falling during this recent losing streak, but to have players like Holmes sounding off rubs salt into everyone’s wounds. Holmes exacerbated a difficult situation and helps create more pressure than necessary when a bumbling team like the Dolphins come to town. The Dolphins are exactly what a struggling team needs to feel better and right the ship, but when fans and players are going off the wagon and losing perspective, the 0-4 team ends up having an artificial advantage because now the Jets run the risk of pressing harder to score 10-point touchdowns every time the offense takes the field. There’s no need to panic. Just work on correcting the mistakes, improving the physicality at the line of scrimmage, playing smarter and score your touchdowns seven points at a time. Consider yourselves lucky you get to fix what ails you against an 0-4 team rather than a 4-0 team. In other words, relax and play Jets football against a team that has no business challenging the Jets when playing to their potential.
Did Holmes say anything we don’t already know regarding what ails the Jets? No, but there was no value or benefit to him saying what he said, except to make himself absolvable of the team’s 2-3 start and struggles. Anyone who truly understands football and the team concept knows Holmes is full of baloney and chutzpah. If Holmes truly was worthy of being a team captain, if he couldn’t keep his mouth shut, he could have and should have said: “we’re all struggling on offense to play up to our potential. As a playmaker, I need to find ways to get open quicker for my quarterback to successfully pass the ball to me and place less stress on our offensive linemen.”
Holmes, a team captain and playmaker, should be talking about how he can help Sanchez, as well as the offensive line: Moore, Mangold, D’Brickashaw Ferguson, Matt Slausen and Wayne Hunter. But Holmes isn’t about helping his teammates as much as himself. After all, charity begins at home, and apparently yards-per-catch average, touchdowns, and SportsCenter highlight catches mean more to Holmes than fighting for the ball and the tough yards. Right now, no Jets receiver has the luxury of gliding downfield for four or five seconds to catch rainbow bombs from Sanchez, so everyone needs to buckle up their chin straps and dig underneath opposing coverages to find open spots where Sanchez can reach them for modest but positive gains. Homeruns will have to take a back seat to “small ball” as the offense grinds four or five yards at a time to covert series of first downs en route to the end zone. If this is what it takes this season, so be it. If it’s simply a matter of time before jabbing away leads to bigger plays, then Holmes needs to bite his tongue, as Moore advised, and be part of the jabbing attack until the offense finally breaks through.
I was among those fans a year ago who wondered if Holmes presence might blow up on Ryan and the Jets organization. Keep in mind, Holmes wore out his welcome so much in Pittsburgh that they gave him away for a fifth-round choice only two years after being a Super Bowl MVP. When times are tough and your head coach has either enough faith or naïveté to name you one of the team captains, perhaps you should have the wisdom and humility to support your teammates like someone who was traded for peanuts, not someone who won an MVP on the basis of a SportsCenter highlight catch. It’s time Holmes finally bought into the tune “When you’re a Jet, you’re a Jet all the way...” instead of constantly humming Da-da-da! Da-da-da! to himself.
As I advised Jets fans during the past week via Twitter, it’s still a long season to go, anything can happen, so try to keep the pessimism balanced a little longer. Quit griping and start encouraging your team to straighten up and play real Jets football. As for the Jets, it’s time for everyone to stop popping off to the media and figure out how to play smarter. You may not have the talent, speed, power, strength, health or depth to dominate like you expected to, but championship-caliber teams find ways to overcome challenges and struggles by using their heads better than any opponent. As I wrote in Philosophy of “Packer” pedagogy, Vince Lombardi and his teams found ways to win games when opponents had the physical advantage. There’s no reason why Rex Ryan’s Jets can’t do the same. The time has come for Gang Green to show itself and everyone else that talking a good game is one thing, thinking a good game is another.
Reminder — Don’t forget my new Book! Available in both paperback and eBook (PDF) format.
Philosophy of “Packer” Pedagogy:
Vince Lombardi, critical thinking and problem-based learning
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/DavePushkin_PackerPedagogy
Well, so far this season, the only thing bigger seems to be Holmes’ mouth, quite possibly in direct proportion to his paycheck, and the only thing better seems to be that Jets fans will have Holmes for a full 16-game season, as opposed to 12 games last year (he was suspended for the first four games of 2010 for violating the NFL conduct policy).
Here we are, entering just the sixth game of the season, and Holmes has not once, but twice, shot off his big mouth to the press, complaining about how the Jets offense is not playing up to his standards as one of the team captains. More specifically, he has called out his quarterback and the offensive line as not doing their jobs well enough to give him the opportunities he apparently deserves in order to shine as a star and playmaker. In other words, if the line blocked better, Sanchez would be passing better, and Holmes would not only have better personal statistics but more highlight appearances on SportsCenter... Oh, and the Jets wouldn’t be a mediocre 2-3 going into Monday night’s home game against the 0-4 Miami Dolphins.
Twice, Holmes has been rebuked, first by the legendary Joe Namath, and now by Pro Bowl caliber right guard Brandon Moore. Namath called out Holmes for potentially creating a schism in the locker room. Moore made it unequivocally clear that Holmes is indeed creating division and dissention within the Jets locker room, and that’s not how a team captain is supposed to operate. Namath and Moore are absolutely right in scolding Holmes. Two of the many unwritten rules of professionalism in sports are: Dirty laundry stays inside the locker room, and Don’t throw teammates under the bus when the team is struggling. Holmes is definitely guilty of both and deserving of a court-marshal as one of the Jets team captains.
I’ve read as much as everyone else and listened to as much as everyone else on this nonsense, and don’t need any more newspapers, radio shows and television shows to tell me the Jets are in a funk, and nobody in Jets Nation needed Santonio Holmes’ yammering about it. In the grand scheme of things, perhaps Holmes’ yammering will end up being an insignificant blip of white noise, but at the present time, six weeks into a season already shaped by a lockout, truncated training camp and preseason, and salary-cap restrictions, Holmes’ big mouth has added to considerable stress and aggravation within the Jets locker room. To say Holmes’ comments to the media have been extremely unhelpful for the team is the season’s biggest understatement so far.
Yes, the Jets are 2-3. Yes, the Jets are riding a three-game losing streak, going 0-3 on a road trip through Oakland, Baltimore, and New England. Yes, the Jets are struggling on both offense and defense, giving up big plays, making too many mistakes, and committing too many penalties. Yes, the offense has yet to find its rushing attack, rushing-passing balance, and consistency with its passing game. Yes, the offensive line has been banged-up and isn’t blocking up to its usual level. Yes, Mark Sanchez has been very inconsistent connecting with his receivers. Yes, playmakers like Holmes have yet to put up big statistics so far.
But we’re only entering the sixth week of the season, the Raiders, Ravens and Patriots are hardly pushovers (the Ravens and Patriots are considered by many as preseason Super Bowl favorites), three-game losing streaks aren’t necessarily impossible to overcome, and there really isn’t any crime in losing on the road. If one objectively looked at the Jets regular season schedule once the lockout ended, one really shouldn’t be shocked the Jets are only 2-3. In fact, an objective Jets fan would’ve expected 3-2 to be a reasonably decent start, given their recent three-game road trip. More importantly, only the most cockeyed of Jets fans would’ve expected Gang Green to have a 2011 record of 13-3 or better. Most experts and realists figured the Jets to be 11-5 (same as last season) or possibly 12-4, so somewhere along the season we all expected the Jets to lose three games. Well, those three losses are now on the books. Perhaps it’s better those three losses come in September and October, rather than in November and December?
Should we completely disregard those three losses and not worry about what we saw over the past three weeks? No, of course not. The Jets lost three games against AFC opponents, three teams all potentially battling the Jets for playoff spots in December, when tiebreakers could be critical. The Jets looked flat and a step behind against the Raiders, reminding us that speed is important and the Jets don’t have as much speed on their roster as desired. The Jets offense looked entirely overmatched against the Ravens (then again, so did the Steelers in the season opener, and Pittsburgh played in last year’s Super Bowl), reminding us that a healthy offensive line is paramount when going against an aggressive defense. The Jets offense struggled on first and third downs against the Patriots suspect defense, reminding us that if you can’t keep Tom Brady off the field, eventually he and his offensive mates will wear down and kill any defense. There were lots of little things not to like about the Jets three-game losing streak and how it transpired. However, there were no major things taking place to hint at a team completely incapable of being in the hunt for a playoff spot and that elusive Super Bowl berth. There are things to fix, and fixed these things will eventually be, because head coach Rex Ryan, and his entire coaching staff, have found ways to fix things en route to the previous two AFC championship games and one step short of the Super Bowl.
And how “bad” is the offense doing — i.e., how much is Mark Sanchez holding back the offense with his regressive play? Let’s get something straight: Sanchez’s stats are not much different than many other AFC quarterbacks. Sanchez has completed 97 of 173 passes, a 56 percent completion percentage. Granted, this isn’t exactly the 68 percent by Tom Brady, but it’s better than the 49.3 percent by Baltimore’s Joe Flacco and not far behind the 59.8 percent by Houston’s Matt Schaub. By the way, the Ravens are 3-1 and the Texans are 3-2, the Texans play at Baltimore this afternoon, and neither team is running away from the AFC pack so far.
After five games, Sanchez has thrown 8 touchdowns and 5 interceptions. Only Brady, Schaub, the Buffalo Bills Ryan Fitzpatrick, and Matt Hasselbeck of the Tennessee Titans have passed for more TDs. The Patriots and Bills are both 4-1, and the Titans are 3-2. Let it also be stated that Brady has already thrown 6 picks after five games, Schaub has thrown 5, as has Matt Cassel of the Kansas City Chiefs. Supposed elite AFC quarterbacks Ben Roethlisberger of the Steelers and Phillip Rivers of the San Diego Chargers have thrown seven and six interceptions, respectively, already. The Steelers are 3-2; the Chargers are 4-1. The bottom line is that Sanchez’s statistics aren’t glaringly different from many other AFC quarterbacks, quarterbacks held in higher regard and for teams considered more successful than the Jets so far. In fact, it looks like even the best of the best are having their off-moments, not too surprising for a season where everyone started out of synch after the lockout ended.
In fact, going into this weekend, 14 of 32 NFL teams are either 2-3, 2-2, or 3-2. In other words, almost half the league is within a game of .500 at the one-third mark of the season. This means at least half the league’s teams are still considered “in the hunt” for the playoffs with 10 or 11 games left to play. The Jets are among those “in the hunt” teams. However, given the annual hype since Rex Ryan became head coach, the Jets are expected to dominate, not simply be in the hunt. Well, if being in the hunt is below par, I can think of worse positions to be in after five weeks. Yes, the Jets could and perhaps should be playing better at this stage of the season, but they could be doing worse, and there are indeed a handful of teams who are playing considerably worse than the Jets. Maybe we should all count the Jets blessings instead of their omissions from the SportsCenter highlights list. It’s a shame Santonio Holmes can’t keep things in perspective, but then again, who knows how many times he has himself starting on his NFL fantasy team?
It’s bad enough inflated expectations have Jets fans flying off the handle and calling into radio stations as if the sky is falling during this recent losing streak, but to have players like Holmes sounding off rubs salt into everyone’s wounds. Holmes exacerbated a difficult situation and helps create more pressure than necessary when a bumbling team like the Dolphins come to town. The Dolphins are exactly what a struggling team needs to feel better and right the ship, but when fans and players are going off the wagon and losing perspective, the 0-4 team ends up having an artificial advantage because now the Jets run the risk of pressing harder to score 10-point touchdowns every time the offense takes the field. There’s no need to panic. Just work on correcting the mistakes, improving the physicality at the line of scrimmage, playing smarter and score your touchdowns seven points at a time. Consider yourselves lucky you get to fix what ails you against an 0-4 team rather than a 4-0 team. In other words, relax and play Jets football against a team that has no business challenging the Jets when playing to their potential.
Did Holmes say anything we don’t already know regarding what ails the Jets? No, but there was no value or benefit to him saying what he said, except to make himself absolvable of the team’s 2-3 start and struggles. Anyone who truly understands football and the team concept knows Holmes is full of baloney and chutzpah. If Holmes truly was worthy of being a team captain, if he couldn’t keep his mouth shut, he could have and should have said: “we’re all struggling on offense to play up to our potential. As a playmaker, I need to find ways to get open quicker for my quarterback to successfully pass the ball to me and place less stress on our offensive linemen.”
Holmes, a team captain and playmaker, should be talking about how he can help Sanchez, as well as the offensive line: Moore, Mangold, D’Brickashaw Ferguson, Matt Slausen and Wayne Hunter. But Holmes isn’t about helping his teammates as much as himself. After all, charity begins at home, and apparently yards-per-catch average, touchdowns, and SportsCenter highlight catches mean more to Holmes than fighting for the ball and the tough yards. Right now, no Jets receiver has the luxury of gliding downfield for four or five seconds to catch rainbow bombs from Sanchez, so everyone needs to buckle up their chin straps and dig underneath opposing coverages to find open spots where Sanchez can reach them for modest but positive gains. Homeruns will have to take a back seat to “small ball” as the offense grinds four or five yards at a time to covert series of first downs en route to the end zone. If this is what it takes this season, so be it. If it’s simply a matter of time before jabbing away leads to bigger plays, then Holmes needs to bite his tongue, as Moore advised, and be part of the jabbing attack until the offense finally breaks through.
I was among those fans a year ago who wondered if Holmes presence might blow up on Ryan and the Jets organization. Keep in mind, Holmes wore out his welcome so much in Pittsburgh that they gave him away for a fifth-round choice only two years after being a Super Bowl MVP. When times are tough and your head coach has either enough faith or naïveté to name you one of the team captains, perhaps you should have the wisdom and humility to support your teammates like someone who was traded for peanuts, not someone who won an MVP on the basis of a SportsCenter highlight catch. It’s time Holmes finally bought into the tune “When you’re a Jet, you’re a Jet all the way...” instead of constantly humming Da-da-da! Da-da-da! to himself.
As I advised Jets fans during the past week via Twitter, it’s still a long season to go, anything can happen, so try to keep the pessimism balanced a little longer. Quit griping and start encouraging your team to straighten up and play real Jets football. As for the Jets, it’s time for everyone to stop popping off to the media and figure out how to play smarter. You may not have the talent, speed, power, strength, health or depth to dominate like you expected to, but championship-caliber teams find ways to overcome challenges and struggles by using their heads better than any opponent. As I wrote in Philosophy of “Packer” pedagogy, Vince Lombardi and his teams found ways to win games when opponents had the physical advantage. There’s no reason why Rex Ryan’s Jets can’t do the same. The time has come for Gang Green to show itself and everyone else that talking a good game is one thing, thinking a good game is another.
Reminder — Don’t forget my new Book! Available in both paperback and eBook (PDF) format.
Philosophy of “Packer” Pedagogy:
Vince Lombardi, critical thinking and problem-based learning
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/DavePushkin_PackerPedagogy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
