Last night the Phoenix suns sported 'Los Suns' jersey, in part, as protest to Arizona's recent "anti-immigrant" legislation HB 1070, which raises the inauspicious specter of racial profiling. Shortly before tipoff Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer responded...actually "response" is not the right word. She flat out KILLED it. If you haven't read it, check it: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=brewer/100505
With a few strokes of the pen, a dash of poignant context, and a sprinkle of fact and legal analysis, Gov. Brewer told the rising tide of backlash to slow its roll, and forced many -- myself included -- to re-evaluate our ever changing opinions of immigration policy and AZ HB 1070. Most importantly, she sounded a warning bell to the bureacrats and legislators in Washington and called them to action.
Before we go too far, I should say up front that I do not agree with Arizona's HB 1070. To the extent HB 1070 makes a state law what is already a federal law (i.e., you have to carry around your green card), I don't have a problem with it. In the utopian version of America where enforcement of said law would not be implemented in a discriminatory way, I do not have a problem with the law. But in real America where we have a long and sordid history of racial profiling and laws being implemented in a discriminatory manner, regardless of Arizona's intentions, this law will be no different. As a black man I couldn't even sit here and say -- knowing full well how the law will be implemented -- that I support HB 1070.
But I do understand the context of HB 1070 and most importantly I support Gov. Brewer's larger point...namely, Washington step your game up! HB 1070 is a racist law that will undoubtedly be applied in a racist way, but the law is merely a symptom of a much larger problem. That problem is money (or many states' lack thereof, bolstered by a lack of federal support),an utter failure of the federal government to even begin to control the southernmost U.S. border, and a lack of any coherent immigration policy. So since the federal government created this mess, opening the door for states to have to resort to reckless policy making in order to address a federal issue, it is only right that the federal government at least start to fix it.
There seems to me 3 and only 3 options to rectify this immigration thing. Since one is but a fantasy pipe dream I will get it out of the way first.
Option 1: Help Mexico?
Yes, I told you it was outlandish. The U.S. has a long history of globe trotting and deploying military might or aid for this or that cause. Our Mexican bretheren haven't been shown much love for one reason or another in this history. But since the U.S. feels some sort of responsibility to repeatedly trot itself around the globe quite often without provocation and more often in instances when we have no business whatsoever being involved, then why not go south of the border with some of this "goodwill"? I know, it's too much to ask to actually make a conscious comprehensive effort to work with the Mexican government to help them stimulate their economy so that significant portions of their population didn't feel like the only land of opportunity was across the border. And the "drug war" ended shortly after the release of Scarface so I suppose it'd be asking too much to really put resources into working with Mexican officials to get the drug cartels down there under control. Besides that might mess with our supply and demand remains high. So helping Mexico help itself is out.
Realistically that leaves 2 and only 2 options.
Option 2: Legalize it!
I have to admit, I'm biased. This option is my favorite. Everyone here (no, I'm not talking to you Native Americans) is either an immigrant or "immigrated" here against their will (lets get busy this year in the World Cup Ivory Coassttt!). America should always be a beacon of hope and should always shine as a safe haven for those far and near who hope to achieve the "American dream" rags to riches style. So with all the genius' in Washington we should have no end of innovative ways to start removing silly visa caps (for people who are already living here anyway, without having to file their federal or state taxes every April 15th!) and legalizing many of these immigrants, which would presumably cure many of the funding woes border states complain about. The caps point demands further attention. Specifically, I get that we have this whole "equality" thing going, but really...can anyone explain to me why it makes sense to have a quota system in place whereby citizens from Belgium and Iceland have to legally immigrate an equal amount of people as Mexico?? Bueller, Bueller, anyone??? I guess spending billions of dollars of tax payer money on enforcement initiatives and STILL having 11-12 million undocumented (i.e., illegal) immigrants and having ridiculous caps and quotas in place is the "new smart".
Anywho, short of a comprehensive legalization effort -- or perhaps coupled with -- we need much stronger federal migrant worker programs and protections. Though I am appreciative of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act, clearly not all immigrants work on farms (fast food restaurants, etc. you know who you are!). Hence, ratifying the "United Nations Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families" would be a nice start.
Option 3: Release the hounds!!
Yep, I said it. The last way to stymie rampant illegal immigration is to get these borders under control. The southern border is too big (Canadians aren't trying to come to this country, so the northern border doesn't count!) and it's an impossible task, you say? Maybe. Maybe not. I will say the U.S. spares no effort or expense when it comes to war mongering, war head making, oil protecting, or big business bailing out. No one's worried about effort, dollars and sense or resources then. We plow through day and night creating and executing plans until we are "victorious". So either protecting the border is a federal priority or it is not. Either we can get er done or not. But if you are sitting here telling me this is the absolute best we can do with border control, we better each hope and pray that we keep traipsing the globe to fight our battles and that no one gets the gumption to bring the fight to us.
Until Washington steps up with some semblance of a coherent federal solution to the immigration problem HB 1070 will not be the last law of its kind we see...it certainly wasn't the first. And that's how Nick, knows it.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Merry March Madness!!
My favorite time of the year is here...at long last! To top it off my favorite team ('Cuse!) has a legit shot at the ship and the Final Four. This next 3 weeks is gonna be amazing.
One of my boys from law school will be chronicling the March to Indianapolis live starting in Providence in Rhode Island...follow along with him for the Madness at http://marchtoindy.blogspot.com/
Merry March Madness everyone!!
One of my boys from law school will be chronicling the March to Indianapolis live starting in Providence in Rhode Island...follow along with him for the Madness at http://marchtoindy.blogspot.com/
Merry March Madness everyone!!
Friday, February 19, 2010
Lessons on Responsibility from El Tigre...
It's been awhile since I've visited the blogosphere, but today Tiger Woods had a press conference. It was...kind of interesting. Without rehashing the (gory? x-rated? sordid?) details of the events leading up to the press conference, Tiger's actions were wrong. But why hold a press conference at all?? Stated differently, did Tiger owe an apology to the world as some folks (yes, I'm talking to you every single person on Larry King Live the other night) seem to believe? No. No. And – say this one with extra-special emphasis — no!
I can think of only two legitimate apologies Tiger needed to make. To his family and to his sponsors. That is the whole and entire list of "I'm sorrys" Tiger should have been up there making at this press conference. Of course, Tiger was unable to properly contain himself instead apologizing to all manner of humans beings both dead and alive. Still, all and all I thought the press conference was pretty good. I very much liked the part where Tiger took full and total responsibility and blame for his actions and tried to deflect negative attention away from his wife and children who did nothing to bring this on. But going on and on to apologize to me, you, the media, the entire world part still bothers me. Tiger you really let me down with that one...
Many people out there are disappointed that Tiger didn't take questions, invite all of the press, and feel like -- even though they do not know Tiger at all -- they are owed some sort of personal apology from him. The reasons why you, me, the general public, the media, etc. are not owed any sort of apology from Tiger are many. I'll list a few. First and foremost, Tiger is a golfer. His private life is his private life. He committed marital infidelity, which is no one's business but his and his wife's. He didn't have to talk about it at all beyond that, so to get upset that Tiger hand picked who was going to be there for the conference or be mad that he didn't want to take questions is ridiculous. He didn't have to say anything at all to any one other than Elin and his sponsors. It was his right to make this public apology a take it or leave it proposition.
Second, and pardon the lawyer speak, Tiger owed no duty whatsoever to the general public. I think Charles Barkley summed this position up quite nicely in his classic 90s Nike Ad campaign where he said "I am not a role model. I am not paid to be a role model. I am paid to wreak havoc on the basketball court. Parents should be role models. Just because I dunk a basketball doesn't mean I should raise your kids." Similarly, Tiger is not a role model. He is a golfer and a human being. Human beings (by definition I think) are fallible. Tiger the human being has proven to be. Are we surprised?? No, we're not surprised because this side of Jesus Christ himself we are all repeatedly fallible. So to feel that Tiger owes you some sort of responsibility of being an all-around perfect human being or owes the youth of the world some duty to show them the path to being a decent human being (or good at anything other than golf) is both unrealistic and preposterous. In fact, though I ddon't have any kids yet, if I raise kids that when asked "who is your role model?" utter anything other than "my parents are my role models" I'd be ashamed of myself. I could come to no other logical conclusion than that I have utterly failed my kids and failed in my job as a parent. Sure, kids have heroes. I have heroes (LeBron and Drake quickly come to mind!), but do I pattern and model my life after them?! No. I root for them in the spirit of competition and enjoy what they offer in the wide world of entertainment. As parents, teaching this simple distinction is your duty to your children in a world where entertainers make a bazillion times more money than their teachers. Tiger owed the media and the world and all of its men, women and little children nothing by way of an apology for his behavior.
This brings me back to the two apologies Tiger owed then. Obviously he owed Elin, his children, and his mother an apology and the reasons for this are self-evident. Moving quickly on then, Tiger also owed an apology to his sponsors. Many people disagree with me on this. But I will nonetheless state why I believe this to be true. To be clear Tiger owed an apology to his sponsors not for the act(ssssssssss) in and of themselves (again, that's a private matter between him and his family), but rather for the negative backlash that his actions caused against his sponsors. Why? Because Tiger contracted and got paid handsomely (to the tune of $100,000,000 every, single year!) to boost the name brand of his sponsors...not to do the exact opposite by sullying and bringing their name brand down. When lots of people began picketing, threatening boycotts, starting letter writing campaigns, going on air, etc. against his sponsors (all of which led to weeks of negative publicity for his sponsors and a taint on their name) he let his sponsors down and failed to live up to his end of the bargain. While I do not think that means that any of his sponsors should have dropped him, I do think that means that Tiger at the very least owed them an apology. Many will say that (like Barkley in basketball) his sponsors pay him to be good at golf. That is undoubtedly true. But the fact remains that what Tiger's sponsors are really paying him to do is to help sell their product to the masses. Tiger gets a salary for playing golf...every time he wins on the PGA Tour. He earns exponentionally more money off the course, however, using his golfing prowess and name brand selling products for his sponsors to the masses.
In all honestly Tiger might very well be unique in owing an apology to his sponsors because of the sport he plays. Golf is a solitary sport. There is Team Tiger and his sponsors and that's it. When you think of Tiger and golf the first thing your mind probably ties him to is the ethereal "golf" and the Nike that adorns him and his balls (pause). Specifically, the first image that probably pops into your mind is Tiger doing the fist pump after sinking some major winning putt with the black Nike cap, with the white Nike swoosh and red Nike polo on. But when you think of MJ and his greatness your mind almost immediately thinks of the Chicago Bulls (specifically him in a Bulls uniform), then Air Jordans, and then Nike. Tiger doesn't have the luxury of having MJ's buffer zone between who he is and his sponsors. There are no franchises in golf to which a player might owe a general duty to not muck things up in such a way as to completely embarrass the team. Just like Michael Vick and Gilbert Arenas both owed an apology to their teams and their owners for all the drama and negative publicity they put their respective organizations through and the backlash that their criminal actions caused, so too does Tiger owe an apology to his "franchise." By all accounts Vick and Gilbert have made such apologies publicly and privately. No franchise should have to go through that and Tiger's sponsors are his franchise.
It matters not that Tiger's actions are not criminal and Vick's and Gil's were. What is important to the franchise/sponsor is the backlash and the negative publicity caused by the employees actions, not necessarily the acts themselves(and their varying levels of egregiousness/criminality). Also what is not important to the franchise/sponsor is the (ir)rationality of all the people causing all of the negative backlash and publicity in the first place. The franchise/sponsor has no real interest in whether the criticism and backlash is merited. For the franchise's bottom line it is irrelevant. The franchise is only concerned with the reality and all it cares about is maintaning a spiffy image and pushing it's product. When you get paid as well as Tiger did to do just that, the least you can do is say "I'm sorry" when you drag the franchise down with you. It is true that sponsors take a risk with any athlete/person they sign that at some point they will mess up privately...people are fallible beings. But that doesn't mean an apology for doing so is not in order. And on the flip side if a sponsor does something to sully and tarnish the name of someone who represents their products, they should just as assuredly be held accountable and apologize for blemishing that individual's reputation too. The sponsorship relationship is a mutual one, and it's certainly a two way street.
So Tiger, today was the first step in the long journey back to rehabilitating your image and back to the golf course (hurry back for the Masters please!), but please stop apologizing to everybody and their mama. We don't need it, don't deserve it, and just wanna see you back on the course doing your thing! The only people who deserve your apologies are your family and your sponsors...everyone else can get an "it's not what you achieve in life that matters, its what you overcome."
I can think of only two legitimate apologies Tiger needed to make. To his family and to his sponsors. That is the whole and entire list of "I'm sorrys" Tiger should have been up there making at this press conference. Of course, Tiger was unable to properly contain himself instead apologizing to all manner of humans beings both dead and alive. Still, all and all I thought the press conference was pretty good. I very much liked the part where Tiger took full and total responsibility and blame for his actions and tried to deflect negative attention away from his wife and children who did nothing to bring this on. But going on and on to apologize to me, you, the media, the entire world part still bothers me. Tiger you really let me down with that one...
Many people out there are disappointed that Tiger didn't take questions, invite all of the press, and feel like -- even though they do not know Tiger at all -- they are owed some sort of personal apology from him. The reasons why you, me, the general public, the media, etc. are not owed any sort of apology from Tiger are many. I'll list a few. First and foremost, Tiger is a golfer. His private life is his private life. He committed marital infidelity, which is no one's business but his and his wife's. He didn't have to talk about it at all beyond that, so to get upset that Tiger hand picked who was going to be there for the conference or be mad that he didn't want to take questions is ridiculous. He didn't have to say anything at all to any one other than Elin and his sponsors. It was his right to make this public apology a take it or leave it proposition.
Second, and pardon the lawyer speak, Tiger owed no duty whatsoever to the general public. I think Charles Barkley summed this position up quite nicely in his classic 90s Nike Ad campaign where he said "I am not a role model. I am not paid to be a role model. I am paid to wreak havoc on the basketball court. Parents should be role models. Just because I dunk a basketball doesn't mean I should raise your kids." Similarly, Tiger is not a role model. He is a golfer and a human being. Human beings (by definition I think) are fallible. Tiger the human being has proven to be. Are we surprised?? No, we're not surprised because this side of Jesus Christ himself we are all repeatedly fallible. So to feel that Tiger owes you some sort of responsibility of being an all-around perfect human being or owes the youth of the world some duty to show them the path to being a decent human being (or good at anything other than golf) is both unrealistic and preposterous. In fact, though I ddon't have any kids yet, if I raise kids that when asked "who is your role model?" utter anything other than "my parents are my role models" I'd be ashamed of myself. I could come to no other logical conclusion than that I have utterly failed my kids and failed in my job as a parent. Sure, kids have heroes. I have heroes (LeBron and Drake quickly come to mind!), but do I pattern and model my life after them?! No. I root for them in the spirit of competition and enjoy what they offer in the wide world of entertainment. As parents, teaching this simple distinction is your duty to your children in a world where entertainers make a bazillion times more money than their teachers. Tiger owed the media and the world and all of its men, women and little children nothing by way of an apology for his behavior.
This brings me back to the two apologies Tiger owed then. Obviously he owed Elin, his children, and his mother an apology and the reasons for this are self-evident. Moving quickly on then, Tiger also owed an apology to his sponsors. Many people disagree with me on this. But I will nonetheless state why I believe this to be true. To be clear Tiger owed an apology to his sponsors not for the act(ssssssssss) in and of themselves (again, that's a private matter between him and his family), but rather for the negative backlash that his actions caused against his sponsors. Why? Because Tiger contracted and got paid handsomely (to the tune of $100,000,000 every, single year!) to boost the name brand of his sponsors...not to do the exact opposite by sullying and bringing their name brand down. When lots of people began picketing, threatening boycotts, starting letter writing campaigns, going on air, etc. against his sponsors (all of which led to weeks of negative publicity for his sponsors and a taint on their name) he let his sponsors down and failed to live up to his end of the bargain. While I do not think that means that any of his sponsors should have dropped him, I do think that means that Tiger at the very least owed them an apology. Many will say that (like Barkley in basketball) his sponsors pay him to be good at golf. That is undoubtedly true. But the fact remains that what Tiger's sponsors are really paying him to do is to help sell their product to the masses. Tiger gets a salary for playing golf...every time he wins on the PGA Tour. He earns exponentionally more money off the course, however, using his golfing prowess and name brand selling products for his sponsors to the masses.
In all honestly Tiger might very well be unique in owing an apology to his sponsors because of the sport he plays. Golf is a solitary sport. There is Team Tiger and his sponsors and that's it. When you think of Tiger and golf the first thing your mind probably ties him to is the ethereal "golf" and the Nike that adorns him and his balls (pause). Specifically, the first image that probably pops into your mind is Tiger doing the fist pump after sinking some major winning putt with the black Nike cap, with the white Nike swoosh and red Nike polo on. But when you think of MJ and his greatness your mind almost immediately thinks of the Chicago Bulls (specifically him in a Bulls uniform), then Air Jordans, and then Nike. Tiger doesn't have the luxury of having MJ's buffer zone between who he is and his sponsors. There are no franchises in golf to which a player might owe a general duty to not muck things up in such a way as to completely embarrass the team. Just like Michael Vick and Gilbert Arenas both owed an apology to their teams and their owners for all the drama and negative publicity they put their respective organizations through and the backlash that their criminal actions caused, so too does Tiger owe an apology to his "franchise." By all accounts Vick and Gilbert have made such apologies publicly and privately. No franchise should have to go through that and Tiger's sponsors are his franchise.
It matters not that Tiger's actions are not criminal and Vick's and Gil's were. What is important to the franchise/sponsor is the backlash and the negative publicity caused by the employees actions, not necessarily the acts themselves(and their varying levels of egregiousness/criminality). Also what is not important to the franchise/sponsor is the (ir)rationality of all the people causing all of the negative backlash and publicity in the first place. The franchise/sponsor has no real interest in whether the criticism and backlash is merited. For the franchise's bottom line it is irrelevant. The franchise is only concerned with the reality and all it cares about is maintaning a spiffy image and pushing it's product. When you get paid as well as Tiger did to do just that, the least you can do is say "I'm sorry" when you drag the franchise down with you. It is true that sponsors take a risk with any athlete/person they sign that at some point they will mess up privately...people are fallible beings. But that doesn't mean an apology for doing so is not in order. And on the flip side if a sponsor does something to sully and tarnish the name of someone who represents their products, they should just as assuredly be held accountable and apologize for blemishing that individual's reputation too. The sponsorship relationship is a mutual one, and it's certainly a two way street.
So Tiger, today was the first step in the long journey back to rehabilitating your image and back to the golf course (hurry back for the Masters please!), but please stop apologizing to everybody and their mama. We don't need it, don't deserve it, and just wanna see you back on the course doing your thing! The only people who deserve your apologies are your family and your sponsors...everyone else can get an "it's not what you achieve in life that matters, its what you overcome."
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Tim Tebow + Abortion = Oh, you KNOW there will be blood...
This is neither an anti or pro abortion post. As much as is humanly possible I try to refrain from spouting off opinions and seriously discussing things that I have not ever, even remotely encountered in my (admittedly limited) life experience. Lets call this rule the "Don't sit on a soapbox and judge if you've never been to the mountaintop" rule. Why do I hold this rule sacred? Because it is very easy to sit here and say you would never do X or would definitely do Y, if all you're doing is sitting there talking about them in a vacuum and not actually doing any doing at all. If you've never been placed in the position to do never do X or definitely do Y, how could you truly know that you would never do X and would definitely do Y? You can't.
For example, it'd be easy for me to sit here and say "Oh, I'd never steal. Stealing is bad and its also a crime." Then again, I've never been truly desperate and hungry. Ever. Making such a statement in a vacuum is easy, especially when you're sitting on the sidelines. From the sidelines it's pretty easy to say things like "I'd never steal." You know what's not easy? Being desperate and/or hungry is not easy. If I was desperate, hungry and had mouths to feed there might be a lot of things I'd do that I wouldn't normally do if I weren't (including getting my Robin Hood on!). That's not to say I condone stealing or any other criminal or illegal behavior. It's just to say that I try not to judge people who steal or do any number of things that in a vacuum I might feel differently about -- because I've never walked a mile in their shoes and if I had to, well my list of "nevers" and "definitelys" might "evolve." The point is if you're looking for pros and cons to pro-life and pro-choice keep it moving.
Now on to the news and the outcry to have CBS not air the Tebow's "pro-family" ad during the superbowl. First, why the uproar over a superbowl ad that hasn't even aired yet?! I can't imagine the hoopla after the commercial is actually aired. SMH. Oh, there will be blood. This guy Tim Tebow can certainly create a stir. It goes without saying, Tim Tebow and the media's constant fawning over him and how great he is at football and life is one of the most controversial topics in America (unless of course you're a member of Gator nation and then you love it). Abortion? Needless to say its pretty high up there on the controvery scale. So I guess fireworks from combining the two is to be expected.
But still...I don't understand. As explained above the only people who should be spouting off either way in the contentious abortion debate are people who have been to the mountaintop. The Tebow's, by all accounts, have been to the mountaintop and have "wrastled" (Tebow for wrestled) with this immensely tough decision. Since they've been there and done that I don't find myself bothered that they want to share their story publicly. Obviously there story won't be for everyone. But that's the beauty of America...you can hear divergent opinions and make your own choices. No one holds a gun to your head either way when it comes to these types things (unless of course you're in the Wizards locker room, where apparently this might be a real concern...but that's a post for another day). So clearly, the Tebow's are entitled to their opinion and are entitled to share their opinion.
The question then is are they entitled to share their opinion publicly on TV? Obviously, and resoundingly yes. Not even the critics of the ad doubt that Focus on the Family has the right to purchase air time and run an ad on TV espousing "family values." Hence, the real question and what has critics most upset is that the ad will run on CBS during the Super Bowl...when you know a whole lot of people will be watching TV! Peculiarly mostly feminist and women's rights groups are urging CBS to abort the ad (no pun intended). Personally, I was unaware that such a large population of women was tuning in to watch some football (even for the Super Bowl), but am definitely happy about this development for sure!! At any rate its clear that anyone can buy an ad and try to get a station to run the ad for public consumption.
So CBS is under fire for allowing Focus on the Family to do just that. On the one hand if CBS had changed up its "advocacy ad" policy midstream to accomodate this ONE commercial (which wouldn't be surprising given that it is Tim Tebow and all) then I could see a legitimate beef. You can't just go changing network policies to accomodate one particular view point or one particular person or organization. That however, does not appear to be the case. Rather CBS has given every indication that it has changed its policy concerning advocacy ads over the last 5 years and according to a CBS spokesperson "most media outlets have accepted advocacy ads for some time." CBS further stated that they will "continue to consider responsibly produced ads from all groups for the few remaining spots in Super Bowl XLIV."
Now here is where I really don't understand all the criticism. I guess it is typical of a society that likes to talk a big talk, but invariably fails to walk a big walk. Yep, I'm about to take it back to the old school..."back in the day when I was coming up as a young whipper snapper and used to have to walk to school 5 miles barefoot in the snow" we used to say things like "put your money where your mouth is." It didn't really matter what the situation was (we could be playing 1-on-1 in hoops, tetherball, UNO, whatever!), but everyone knew you might fool around for awhile and get beat, but when it came to money time?? You stop playing games and get serious. Apparently these critics have forgotten another golden rule "Money Talks." So I get it...many advocacy groups have a different opinion on abortion than Focus on the Family and the Tebow's. Again, that's part of the reason America is so great...not everyone has to think the same thing or make the same choices. So when representatives from the coalition of women's rights groups opposing the ad were asked the imminently reasonable question of whether they planned to put their money where their mouth is and shell out $2.5 million dollars to run a super bowl abortion ad in line with their own beliefs, their resounding response was "no." And what of the United Church of Christ who was rebuffed by CBS in 2004 (before the policy change) when they wanted to run an ad showing gays worshipping in church? When asked if they would be putting their money where there mouth is and running a counter ad to show the pro-choice side of things or re-submitting an ad for gay rights, the Church's pastor responded with a resounding "no." Newsflash: you can't vehemently oppose CBS's decision to take $2.5 million dollars to run an advocacy ad, while on the other hand refusing to make the same investment in your cause that Focus on the Family has. If, as the critics whine it is, it is a super big deal to run a commercial on CBS during the Super Bowl, then seize the opportunity yourself...run a counter ad. Don't just sit around crying about things being unfair if you haven't even tried to get CBS to run your ad in this year's Super Bowl.
These organizations have not put their money where their mouth is and so there really is nothing to criticize. Focus on the Family and Tim Tebow broke no rules. I repeat (like it or not) the Golden Rule is money talks. Focus on the Family had some "generous donors" who felt a certain way about something and committed their generous pockets to making it happen. They didn't dig into the organizations coffers at all to pay for the commercial time. If any organization were to submit an advocacy ad for play by CBS during the Super Bowl (along with their $2.5 mil of course) and CBS flim flammed some reason for denying their ad while allowing the Tebow's? Then by all means there's a legitimate beef and critics should be criticizing. This has not happened. So until some of these critics start putting their money with their mouths are and gets rebuffed by CBS they should just pipe down and enjoy the game (and the funny commercials!).
For example, it'd be easy for me to sit here and say "Oh, I'd never steal. Stealing is bad and its also a crime." Then again, I've never been truly desperate and hungry. Ever. Making such a statement in a vacuum is easy, especially when you're sitting on the sidelines. From the sidelines it's pretty easy to say things like "I'd never steal." You know what's not easy? Being desperate and/or hungry is not easy. If I was desperate, hungry and had mouths to feed there might be a lot of things I'd do that I wouldn't normally do if I weren't (including getting my Robin Hood on!). That's not to say I condone stealing or any other criminal or illegal behavior. It's just to say that I try not to judge people who steal or do any number of things that in a vacuum I might feel differently about -- because I've never walked a mile in their shoes and if I had to, well my list of "nevers" and "definitelys" might "evolve." The point is if you're looking for pros and cons to pro-life and pro-choice keep it moving.
Now on to the news and the outcry to have CBS not air the Tebow's "pro-family" ad during the superbowl. First, why the uproar over a superbowl ad that hasn't even aired yet?! I can't imagine the hoopla after the commercial is actually aired. SMH. Oh, there will be blood. This guy Tim Tebow can certainly create a stir. It goes without saying, Tim Tebow and the media's constant fawning over him and how great he is at football and life is one of the most controversial topics in America (unless of course you're a member of Gator nation and then you love it). Abortion? Needless to say its pretty high up there on the controvery scale. So I guess fireworks from combining the two is to be expected.
But still...I don't understand. As explained above the only people who should be spouting off either way in the contentious abortion debate are people who have been to the mountaintop. The Tebow's, by all accounts, have been to the mountaintop and have "wrastled" (Tebow for wrestled) with this immensely tough decision. Since they've been there and done that I don't find myself bothered that they want to share their story publicly. Obviously there story won't be for everyone. But that's the beauty of America...you can hear divergent opinions and make your own choices. No one holds a gun to your head either way when it comes to these types things (unless of course you're in the Wizards locker room, where apparently this might be a real concern...but that's a post for another day). So clearly, the Tebow's are entitled to their opinion and are entitled to share their opinion.
The question then is are they entitled to share their opinion publicly on TV? Obviously, and resoundingly yes. Not even the critics of the ad doubt that Focus on the Family has the right to purchase air time and run an ad on TV espousing "family values." Hence, the real question and what has critics most upset is that the ad will run on CBS during the Super Bowl...when you know a whole lot of people will be watching TV! Peculiarly mostly feminist and women's rights groups are urging CBS to abort the ad (no pun intended). Personally, I was unaware that such a large population of women was tuning in to watch some football (even for the Super Bowl), but am definitely happy about this development for sure!! At any rate its clear that anyone can buy an ad and try to get a station to run the ad for public consumption.
So CBS is under fire for allowing Focus on the Family to do just that. On the one hand if CBS had changed up its "advocacy ad" policy midstream to accomodate this ONE commercial (which wouldn't be surprising given that it is Tim Tebow and all) then I could see a legitimate beef. You can't just go changing network policies to accomodate one particular view point or one particular person or organization. That however, does not appear to be the case. Rather CBS has given every indication that it has changed its policy concerning advocacy ads over the last 5 years and according to a CBS spokesperson "most media outlets have accepted advocacy ads for some time." CBS further stated that they will "continue to consider responsibly produced ads from all groups for the few remaining spots in Super Bowl XLIV."
Now here is where I really don't understand all the criticism. I guess it is typical of a society that likes to talk a big talk, but invariably fails to walk a big walk. Yep, I'm about to take it back to the old school..."back in the day when I was coming up as a young whipper snapper and used to have to walk to school 5 miles barefoot in the snow" we used to say things like "put your money where your mouth is." It didn't really matter what the situation was (we could be playing 1-on-1 in hoops, tetherball, UNO, whatever!), but everyone knew you might fool around for awhile and get beat, but when it came to money time?? You stop playing games and get serious. Apparently these critics have forgotten another golden rule "Money Talks." So I get it...many advocacy groups have a different opinion on abortion than Focus on the Family and the Tebow's. Again, that's part of the reason America is so great...not everyone has to think the same thing or make the same choices. So when representatives from the coalition of women's rights groups opposing the ad were asked the imminently reasonable question of whether they planned to put their money where their mouth is and shell out $2.5 million dollars to run a super bowl abortion ad in line with their own beliefs, their resounding response was "no." And what of the United Church of Christ who was rebuffed by CBS in 2004 (before the policy change) when they wanted to run an ad showing gays worshipping in church? When asked if they would be putting their money where there mouth is and running a counter ad to show the pro-choice side of things or re-submitting an ad for gay rights, the Church's pastor responded with a resounding "no." Newsflash: you can't vehemently oppose CBS's decision to take $2.5 million dollars to run an advocacy ad, while on the other hand refusing to make the same investment in your cause that Focus on the Family has. If, as the critics whine it is, it is a super big deal to run a commercial on CBS during the Super Bowl, then seize the opportunity yourself...run a counter ad. Don't just sit around crying about things being unfair if you haven't even tried to get CBS to run your ad in this year's Super Bowl.
These organizations have not put their money where their mouth is and so there really is nothing to criticize. Focus on the Family and Tim Tebow broke no rules. I repeat (like it or not) the Golden Rule is money talks. Focus on the Family had some "generous donors" who felt a certain way about something and committed their generous pockets to making it happen. They didn't dig into the organizations coffers at all to pay for the commercial time. If any organization were to submit an advocacy ad for play by CBS during the Super Bowl (along with their $2.5 mil of course) and CBS flim flammed some reason for denying their ad while allowing the Tebow's? Then by all means there's a legitimate beef and critics should be criticizing. This has not happened. So until some of these critics start putting their money with their mouths are and gets rebuffed by CBS they should just pipe down and enjoy the game (and the funny commercials!).
Friday, January 22, 2010
Dwight Shrute wants to be an All-Star too...
Once upon a time, in a land actually not too far, far away (lets call this land Legitimus All-Staronius) AI (yes, the same AI who did not start over the illustrious Mike Conley for the Grizz and the same AI who couldn't even get the Knicks to pick him up despite the Knicks starting 4 1/2 players, yeah I'm talking to you Chris Duhon), would not even be on the All-Star game ballot. In Legitimus All-Staronius 2010 T-Mac would never come precipitously close to starting an All-Star game and would never end up as the 2nd leading vote getter for Western Conference guards (ahead of Chris Paul!) by putting up such incredible season averages of 3.2 pts and 1 assist in 7 minutes of play in 6 games. In Legitimus All-Staronius players who are really centers (yes Tim Duncan, I'm talking to you) would not masquerade on the ballot as PF's because they would not get voted in as All-Star starters with a dominate Shaq and a healthy Yao (oh wait never mind, Yao is never really healthy) on the ballot as Western Conference centers.
Ahh how I long for the days of yonder in Legitimus All-Staronius. Meanwhile, in the present day Association, chaos is afoot...the least knowledgeable people in the sport (fans of course) are 100% in control over who starts the All-Star game. Players who don't deserve to start (yes, I'm talking to you AI and yes you too KG with your 20 something games played, and I was almost talking to you too T-Mac before we were spared the embarrassment at the last minute) are taking All-Star spots away from much more deserving players. This is not shocking...again, the least knowledgeable people on the sport are wholly responsible for selecting starters with no input whatsoever from coaches, GMs, and the players themselves.
But the best part of the story?? That's easy, the NBA's patent refusal to do anything at all about these shenanigans because "the NBA is a fans game and the All-Star game and the sport are all about the fans." Lol this is classic. As a fan, I was completely unaware that the NBA cared about me at all. I mean I know they care about the fans sitting in the luxury boxes and maybe about the ones sitting courtside, but me?? God bless David Stern for thinking about me, the fan, during the All-Star game (which of course there is no shot I will likely ever be able to go to).
Lets briefly chronicle the NBA's "hey, we're all about the fans" concern shall we. First, if I want to go see an NBA game I have to pay ridiculous prices to see the game from really far away (the costs of these far away seats go up every year). At many arenas if I even want a whiff of seeing LeBron, Melo or any of the other megastars, I better be prepared to buy a package deal that includes two lame teams like the T'Wolves and Pacers cuz according to the NBA "not only are we forcing you to fork over a lot of dough to see LeBron, but he's a package deal...you get to see Roy Hibbert and Corey Brewer too!" Anyways since paying $30 for the parking lot is patently out of the question, I've trained it to the game, plopped down in my $80 "wow, LeBron looks really small from up here seat" and since I can't bring my own peanuts and cracker jacks to the game I'm now hungry. Needless to say the $50 I spend for food and drinks for two at the concessions stand could have likely been better spent at a finer eating establishment. But you know what, I have a better idea! Why not just stay home and watch the game in the comfort of my own home?! Oh wait, if I want to watch an NBA game at home on my couch I have to pay ridiculously high prices for the NBA's league pass. So it is crystal clear to the fans that the NBA is a business and there in it to win it, but much less clear is that the NBA cares about me, the fan...unless of course we're talking about voting for the All-Star game.
And what is the NBA's real fear if for instance when the All-Star game rolled around fans counted for 1/3 of the vote, players counted for 1/3 of the vote, and coaches/GMs counted for 1/3 of the vote?? That the fans are not going to show up to watch the All-Star game at all if Rajon Rondo or Steve Nash or Chris Paul starts and Allen Iverson and T-Mac aren't close to sniffing the team?? Never fear NBA, as I can assure you there will be no dreaded fan revolt from the horror of having to watch Steve Nash or CP3 or Rondo start the All-Star game and drop dimes and throw oops throughout. Of course fans will continue to pay to watch the All-Star game and will tune in on TV, and of course the game will still, somehow be exciting if only real All-Stars played in it. Why? Because people who know the game (coaches, players, gms, beat writers, etc.) are not going to be selecting Mighty Mbenga or J.J. Reddick (Dukie...nuff said!) for the All-Star roster. They are going to select the most deserving guys to play in the game, including the actual and wildly entertaining superstars of the league (LeBron, Kobe, Melo, D-Wade, Howard, Roy, Paul, D-Will, etc.) and not the watered down "name brand" superstars of yesteryear. I mean c'mon, what fan is seriously buying a ticket to the All-Star game in the hopes of seeing AI or T-Mac "crush it" with guys like LeBron, Kobe, Durant, D-Wade, D-Howard, CP3, Melo in the building?! What fan in their right mind is tuning in to the All-Star game thinking "I can't wait to see T-Mac take a bunch of off balanced fadeaway threes with a hand in his face in the All-Star game today, it's gonna be awesome"??!! No fan is thinking that, which makes the NBA's explanation for not doing anything at all implausible (yes, T-Mac and AI obviously got votes...a lot of them. But the point is that fans are not going to NOT watch the game if, for whatever reason, neither of them are in the game. So the NBA saying they're keeping 100% fan voting because the game is about what the fans want is nonsensical).
Why does any of this matter at the end of the day? Who cares if the AI's or T-Mac's of the world take away an All-Star spot from a more deserving player?? Well for one it matters to the players. It's actually an honor to be named to an all-star team. It means someone, anyone has recognized your accomplishment in something that you have likely dedicated your whole life to being good at. I imagine that must feel pretty special. Imagine if Michael Scott created an All-Star team at Dunder-Mifflin...does anyone in their right mind think that Dwight Shrute would not KILL himself to be on it?! Even Jim would want to be on Dunder-Mifflin's All-Star team. You'd want to be on the All-Star team at your office too because it means someone has recognized you for the great work you do. And while you might want your clients (fans?) input as to the job you did, you'd also want the input and respect from your peers and bosses because they are really the ones who know all that you contribute. In the NBA it's no different.
But this matters for more practical reasons than emotional lifetime achievement ones. It matters because fan voting is taking money out of players' pockets by giving away All-Star spots to players who do not deserve them. For example, many professional contracts contain rather lucrative bonuses, incentives and escalators that kick in when a player is named to an All-Star team. In addition, making an All-Star team is an undoutable boost to a player's credentials. This boost could be critical in contract negotations. When its time to negotiate that next big contract and secure the well-being of family being an "All-Star" can swing leverage in your favor. So yes, in a very real way All-Star "slights" are kind of a big deal.
While I have poked some fun at AI and T-Mac, it should be noted that I think AI and T-Mac are fantastic people and players. Indeed, I grew up as big fans of both guys games and still am a fan of what they bring to the court (though certainly not a fan of what they would bring to my fantasy basketball team). I just don't think the 2010 version of either player is truly worthy of All-Star consideration.
So what to do about fan voting?? For one, 100% fan voting is not the way to go. Break it into thirds and let fans, players, coaches and GMs all play a role in voting for who starts the game. Second, please stop printing the ballots before the season even starts! The game is in February for crying out loud. I bet if you let the season play itself out a little bit, printed out and distributed ballots in December and gave everyone a couple of months to vote, it would be fine...and guys like Zach Randolph who are putting up 21 pts and 11 boards and Kaman putting up 20 pts and 9 boards a night won't be omitted entirely from the ballot. You get one day to vote for the President...2.5 months should be plenty of time to figure out whose in the "deserving" ball park, make a ballot, distribute it, and have folks check "yes" to LeBron and "no" to AI (and voting is done online and through texting mostly, so don't tell me time is an issue here!). Lastly, the "China Problem." Something has to be done about the voting (patterns) in China. China I love you, but a billion votes for T-Mac just because he plays with Yao is unacceptable. What's next Carl Landry and Luis Scola for the 2011 All-Star team?! No thanks...
Anyway, no matter what happens I'm sure the game will be fun for all in Dallas, but please NBA stop the charade about how the game and the NBA is "fan"tastic. Fantastic? Yes! "Fan"tastic? No.
Ahh how I long for the days of yonder in Legitimus All-Staronius. Meanwhile, in the present day Association, chaos is afoot...the least knowledgeable people in the sport (fans of course) are 100% in control over who starts the All-Star game. Players who don't deserve to start (yes, I'm talking to you AI and yes you too KG with your 20 something games played, and I was almost talking to you too T-Mac before we were spared the embarrassment at the last minute) are taking All-Star spots away from much more deserving players. This is not shocking...again, the least knowledgeable people on the sport are wholly responsible for selecting starters with no input whatsoever from coaches, GMs, and the players themselves.
But the best part of the story?? That's easy, the NBA's patent refusal to do anything at all about these shenanigans because "the NBA is a fans game and the All-Star game and the sport are all about the fans." Lol this is classic. As a fan, I was completely unaware that the NBA cared about me at all. I mean I know they care about the fans sitting in the luxury boxes and maybe about the ones sitting courtside, but me?? God bless David Stern for thinking about me, the fan, during the All-Star game (which of course there is no shot I will likely ever be able to go to).
Lets briefly chronicle the NBA's "hey, we're all about the fans" concern shall we. First, if I want to go see an NBA game I have to pay ridiculous prices to see the game from really far away (the costs of these far away seats go up every year). At many arenas if I even want a whiff of seeing LeBron, Melo or any of the other megastars, I better be prepared to buy a package deal that includes two lame teams like the T'Wolves and Pacers cuz according to the NBA "not only are we forcing you to fork over a lot of dough to see LeBron, but he's a package deal...you get to see Roy Hibbert and Corey Brewer too!" Anyways since paying $30 for the parking lot is patently out of the question, I've trained it to the game, plopped down in my $80 "wow, LeBron looks really small from up here seat" and since I can't bring my own peanuts and cracker jacks to the game I'm now hungry. Needless to say the $50 I spend for food and drinks for two at the concessions stand could have likely been better spent at a finer eating establishment. But you know what, I have a better idea! Why not just stay home and watch the game in the comfort of my own home?! Oh wait, if I want to watch an NBA game at home on my couch I have to pay ridiculously high prices for the NBA's league pass. So it is crystal clear to the fans that the NBA is a business and there in it to win it, but much less clear is that the NBA cares about me, the fan...unless of course we're talking about voting for the All-Star game.
And what is the NBA's real fear if for instance when the All-Star game rolled around fans counted for 1/3 of the vote, players counted for 1/3 of the vote, and coaches/GMs counted for 1/3 of the vote?? That the fans are not going to show up to watch the All-Star game at all if Rajon Rondo or Steve Nash or Chris Paul starts and Allen Iverson and T-Mac aren't close to sniffing the team?? Never fear NBA, as I can assure you there will be no dreaded fan revolt from the horror of having to watch Steve Nash or CP3 or Rondo start the All-Star game and drop dimes and throw oops throughout. Of course fans will continue to pay to watch the All-Star game and will tune in on TV, and of course the game will still, somehow be exciting if only real All-Stars played in it. Why? Because people who know the game (coaches, players, gms, beat writers, etc.) are not going to be selecting Mighty Mbenga or J.J. Reddick (Dukie...nuff said!) for the All-Star roster. They are going to select the most deserving guys to play in the game, including the actual and wildly entertaining superstars of the league (LeBron, Kobe, Melo, D-Wade, Howard, Roy, Paul, D-Will, etc.) and not the watered down "name brand" superstars of yesteryear. I mean c'mon, what fan is seriously buying a ticket to the All-Star game in the hopes of seeing AI or T-Mac "crush it" with guys like LeBron, Kobe, Durant, D-Wade, D-Howard, CP3, Melo in the building?! What fan in their right mind is tuning in to the All-Star game thinking "I can't wait to see T-Mac take a bunch of off balanced fadeaway threes with a hand in his face in the All-Star game today, it's gonna be awesome"??!! No fan is thinking that, which makes the NBA's explanation for not doing anything at all implausible (yes, T-Mac and AI obviously got votes...a lot of them. But the point is that fans are not going to NOT watch the game if, for whatever reason, neither of them are in the game. So the NBA saying they're keeping 100% fan voting because the game is about what the fans want is nonsensical).
Why does any of this matter at the end of the day? Who cares if the AI's or T-Mac's of the world take away an All-Star spot from a more deserving player?? Well for one it matters to the players. It's actually an honor to be named to an all-star team. It means someone, anyone has recognized your accomplishment in something that you have likely dedicated your whole life to being good at. I imagine that must feel pretty special. Imagine if Michael Scott created an All-Star team at Dunder-Mifflin...does anyone in their right mind think that Dwight Shrute would not KILL himself to be on it?! Even Jim would want to be on Dunder-Mifflin's All-Star team. You'd want to be on the All-Star team at your office too because it means someone has recognized you for the great work you do. And while you might want your clients (fans?) input as to the job you did, you'd also want the input and respect from your peers and bosses because they are really the ones who know all that you contribute. In the NBA it's no different.
But this matters for more practical reasons than emotional lifetime achievement ones. It matters because fan voting is taking money out of players' pockets by giving away All-Star spots to players who do not deserve them. For example, many professional contracts contain rather lucrative bonuses, incentives and escalators that kick in when a player is named to an All-Star team. In addition, making an All-Star team is an undoutable boost to a player's credentials. This boost could be critical in contract negotations. When its time to negotiate that next big contract and secure the well-being of family being an "All-Star" can swing leverage in your favor. So yes, in a very real way All-Star "slights" are kind of a big deal.
While I have poked some fun at AI and T-Mac, it should be noted that I think AI and T-Mac are fantastic people and players. Indeed, I grew up as big fans of both guys games and still am a fan of what they bring to the court (though certainly not a fan of what they would bring to my fantasy basketball team). I just don't think the 2010 version of either player is truly worthy of All-Star consideration.
So what to do about fan voting?? For one, 100% fan voting is not the way to go. Break it into thirds and let fans, players, coaches and GMs all play a role in voting for who starts the game. Second, please stop printing the ballots before the season even starts! The game is in February for crying out loud. I bet if you let the season play itself out a little bit, printed out and distributed ballots in December and gave everyone a couple of months to vote, it would be fine...and guys like Zach Randolph who are putting up 21 pts and 11 boards and Kaman putting up 20 pts and 9 boards a night won't be omitted entirely from the ballot. You get one day to vote for the President...2.5 months should be plenty of time to figure out whose in the "deserving" ball park, make a ballot, distribute it, and have folks check "yes" to LeBron and "no" to AI (and voting is done online and through texting mostly, so don't tell me time is an issue here!). Lastly, the "China Problem." Something has to be done about the voting (patterns) in China. China I love you, but a billion votes for T-Mac just because he plays with Yao is unacceptable. What's next Carl Landry and Luis Scola for the 2011 All-Star team?! No thanks...
Anyway, no matter what happens I'm sure the game will be fun for all in Dallas, but please NBA stop the charade about how the game and the NBA is "fan"tastic. Fantastic? Yes! "Fan"tastic? No.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Contracts Class and Lane Kiffin (apparently the first coach to ever leave for a better job in the whole world, ever)...
There are many things I learned while in law school. The most important of which is that Contracts is not really my bag. Seriously...it was far and away my worst grade in law school. No, I didn't panic or choke during the exam...apparently I just didn't know (at all) what the heck I was talking about.
Be that as it may, if there is ONE thing I know FOR SURE from Contracts its that contracts are made to be broken...it's their raison d'etre! I mean all the loopholes, outs, and double speak in them are mind boggling.
Thus, I am surprised to see all of this negative pub aimed at Lane Kiffin. My favorite hater quotes coming from none other than SI's Peter King who says, "The gall of Kiffin. The unmitigated, outrageous gall of this kid. Where's the decency? The maturity? The gratitude? The simple sense of even a pinch of loyalty?"
This negative pub generally falls into 2 categories of hater-ade. Category 1) "Lane Kiffin is a mediocre-terrible coach, how'd he even GET such a good job?!" Category 2) "Lane Kiffin had a contract with Tennessee and he should honor his contract, because you know 'word is bond.'"
Both criticisms are ridiculous. 1) It is irrelevant how good of a coach Lane Kiffin is (and lets be honest a 7-6 record in the SEC--only the toughest conference in college football--for a Tennessee team that was not all that talented and a sub .500 stint with the Raiders--I mean really, who wins with the Raiders?!--is not really much to judge a man's coaching talents on). The only relevant issue is whether or not USC felt like Lane Kiffin was a good enough coach to coach their team. Critics hating on Kiffin because USC thought he was talented enough to offer him the job is as ridiculous as people hating on Obama because the Nobel Peace Prize committee deemed him worthy of its highest honor. Obama didn't give himself the Nobel Peace Prize and Kiffin didn't give himself the coaching job at USC.
If pundits have any beef at all regarding Kiffin's rapid ascension to one of the cushiest coaching jobs on the college landscape, their ire seems woefully misplaced. If there's anyone to be mad at at all it's the Athletic Director at USC, not Kiffin who didn't hire himself. Hence, sitting up on soap box and saying that Kiffin's mediocre coaching record or accomplishments doesn't merit the prestigious coaching job at USC and that he is spoiled is pointless. Apparently, the people making the hiring decisions at USC felt otherwise, and that's certainly not something to get mad at Kiffin about and make him seem like some spoiled kid because he's been fortunate enough to have 3 good coaching jobs in his very young career. Obviously the man must be doing SOMETHING right...maybe he's a great interview lol. At any rate, I'm positive that someone (possibly) overvaluing the talents of a head football coach is not a new phenemenon and it certainly doesn't mean that the college football coaching world is turned upside down on its head. And any coach who questions the hiring should be ashamed of themselves. Sounds more like sour grapes to me.
2) "Contracts?! We talkin bout contracts?!" (Allen Iverson). The facts are these. Lane Kiffin is not the first coach to have a contract and is not the first coach to leave one job for a better one. Nick Saban did it, Rich Rodriguez did it, Urban Meyer did it, Brian Kelly just did it, Rick Pitino did it, Spurrier did it, John Calipari did it, Pete Carroll did it, Mack Brown did it. And the list goes on and on...coaches are constantly trying to upgrade their stance in the profession and reach that dream job. Apparently, USC was that place for Kiffin. Another pertinent fact that those making the contract argument like to lightly gloss over or don't mention at all is that Kiffin did NOT break his contract. His contract had a buyout after one year, which Kiffin exercised and paid. Apparently, it was smart of Kiffin to negotiate this clause into his contract...
So the contract argument quickly boils down to "oh, well he recruited a bunch of impressionable kids and promised he would never leave them" and "Tennessee gave him a good job after he had been fired, so he owed them more loyalty." The latter is a presposterously hilarious argument considering, Tennessee showed no loyalty whatsoever when they unceremoniously fired and bought out Phil Fulmer (who coached the team back when Petyon Manning was a Volunteer for cying out loud!). As for the impressionable teens who were promised a national championship from Kiffin and now have been left in the cold...you've got to be kidding me right?? Where is all this media compassion and spotlight for these young impressionable student-athletes when it comes to actually holding coaches and universities accountable for actually providing them with an education?? Which presumably is why student-athletes go to college...Where is all this compassion when student-athletes get suspended for obtaining calling cards by "improper means" so they can make phone calls home because while the NCAA and universities are raking in the dough off of the blood, sweat and tears of its student-athletes the players have to work at the check in desk at the rec gym for $7 an hr to get the finer things in life...like calling cards. Save the compassion for the kids speech...Lane Kiffin is not the only man in the world who can help mold fine upstanding leaders, athletes and men at UT.
So in the end why begrudge Kiffin because he's achieved his dream?? Why say he's not ready or undeserved? When a once in a lifetime opportunity presents itself (and yes, the head ball coach job at USC is a once in a lifetime opportunity), you don't pass it up. You grab it! Did Barack Obama think I shouldn't run for President because I'm too young, am a Jr. Senator, haven't had enough political experience?? No! He said 'Yes we can!' because when the iron is hot...you strike. You don't wait for the chance of a lifetime to come back around, you seize the moment. That is what Lane Kiffin did. Who knows if/when the USC coaching job might have come back open? Who knows if Kiffin would have been in a position again to achieve his dream? Why take that risk? You don't. You thank Tennessee, the fans, and the players for everything, invoke your buyout clause and head for Hollywood and the beach where you can sit in the sun, sip on a daiquiri, gameplan for beating the mighty Washington Cougars (as opposed to the Tide or Gators) and read articles about how Peter King is the most upstanding man in the moral universe and would never leave his job if he signed a contract no matter what the job or how much money was thrown at him (and apparently no matter if he had a buyout clause in it).
Be that as it may, if there is ONE thing I know FOR SURE from Contracts its that contracts are made to be broken...it's their raison d'etre! I mean all the loopholes, outs, and double speak in them are mind boggling.
Thus, I am surprised to see all of this negative pub aimed at Lane Kiffin. My favorite hater quotes coming from none other than SI's Peter King who says, "The gall of Kiffin. The unmitigated, outrageous gall of this kid. Where's the decency? The maturity? The gratitude? The simple sense of even a pinch of loyalty?"
This negative pub generally falls into 2 categories of hater-ade. Category 1) "Lane Kiffin is a mediocre-terrible coach, how'd he even GET such a good job?!" Category 2) "Lane Kiffin had a contract with Tennessee and he should honor his contract, because you know 'word is bond.'"
Both criticisms are ridiculous. 1) It is irrelevant how good of a coach Lane Kiffin is (and lets be honest a 7-6 record in the SEC--only the toughest conference in college football--for a Tennessee team that was not all that talented and a sub .500 stint with the Raiders--I mean really, who wins with the Raiders?!--is not really much to judge a man's coaching talents on). The only relevant issue is whether or not USC felt like Lane Kiffin was a good enough coach to coach their team. Critics hating on Kiffin because USC thought he was talented enough to offer him the job is as ridiculous as people hating on Obama because the Nobel Peace Prize committee deemed him worthy of its highest honor. Obama didn't give himself the Nobel Peace Prize and Kiffin didn't give himself the coaching job at USC.
If pundits have any beef at all regarding Kiffin's rapid ascension to one of the cushiest coaching jobs on the college landscape, their ire seems woefully misplaced. If there's anyone to be mad at at all it's the Athletic Director at USC, not Kiffin who didn't hire himself. Hence, sitting up on soap box and saying that Kiffin's mediocre coaching record or accomplishments doesn't merit the prestigious coaching job at USC and that he is spoiled is pointless. Apparently, the people making the hiring decisions at USC felt otherwise, and that's certainly not something to get mad at Kiffin about and make him seem like some spoiled kid because he's been fortunate enough to have 3 good coaching jobs in his very young career. Obviously the man must be doing SOMETHING right...maybe he's a great interview lol. At any rate, I'm positive that someone (possibly) overvaluing the talents of a head football coach is not a new phenemenon and it certainly doesn't mean that the college football coaching world is turned upside down on its head. And any coach who questions the hiring should be ashamed of themselves. Sounds more like sour grapes to me.
2) "Contracts?! We talkin bout contracts?!" (Allen Iverson). The facts are these. Lane Kiffin is not the first coach to have a contract and is not the first coach to leave one job for a better one. Nick Saban did it, Rich Rodriguez did it, Urban Meyer did it, Brian Kelly just did it, Rick Pitino did it, Spurrier did it, John Calipari did it, Pete Carroll did it, Mack Brown did it. And the list goes on and on...coaches are constantly trying to upgrade their stance in the profession and reach that dream job. Apparently, USC was that place for Kiffin. Another pertinent fact that those making the contract argument like to lightly gloss over or don't mention at all is that Kiffin did NOT break his contract. His contract had a buyout after one year, which Kiffin exercised and paid. Apparently, it was smart of Kiffin to negotiate this clause into his contract...
So the contract argument quickly boils down to "oh, well he recruited a bunch of impressionable kids and promised he would never leave them" and "Tennessee gave him a good job after he had been fired, so he owed them more loyalty." The latter is a presposterously hilarious argument considering, Tennessee showed no loyalty whatsoever when they unceremoniously fired and bought out Phil Fulmer (who coached the team back when Petyon Manning was a Volunteer for cying out loud!). As for the impressionable teens who were promised a national championship from Kiffin and now have been left in the cold...you've got to be kidding me right?? Where is all this media compassion and spotlight for these young impressionable student-athletes when it comes to actually holding coaches and universities accountable for actually providing them with an education?? Which presumably is why student-athletes go to college...Where is all this compassion when student-athletes get suspended for obtaining calling cards by "improper means" so they can make phone calls home because while the NCAA and universities are raking in the dough off of the blood, sweat and tears of its student-athletes the players have to work at the check in desk at the rec gym for $7 an hr to get the finer things in life...like calling cards. Save the compassion for the kids speech...Lane Kiffin is not the only man in the world who can help mold fine upstanding leaders, athletes and men at UT.
So in the end why begrudge Kiffin because he's achieved his dream?? Why say he's not ready or undeserved? When a once in a lifetime opportunity presents itself (and yes, the head ball coach job at USC is a once in a lifetime opportunity), you don't pass it up. You grab it! Did Barack Obama think I shouldn't run for President because I'm too young, am a Jr. Senator, haven't had enough political experience?? No! He said 'Yes we can!' because when the iron is hot...you strike. You don't wait for the chance of a lifetime to come back around, you seize the moment. That is what Lane Kiffin did. Who knows if/when the USC coaching job might have come back open? Who knows if Kiffin would have been in a position again to achieve his dream? Why take that risk? You don't. You thank Tennessee, the fans, and the players for everything, invoke your buyout clause and head for Hollywood and the beach where you can sit in the sun, sip on a daiquiri, gameplan for beating the mighty Washington Cougars (as opposed to the Tide or Gators) and read articles about how Peter King is the most upstanding man in the moral universe and would never leave his job if he signed a contract no matter what the job or how much money was thrown at him (and apparently no matter if he had a buyout clause in it).
Haiti: The Lesson, as always..."God don't make no mistakes"
Though nothing really surprises me, I never ceased to be amazed by people sometimes. I'll readily admit...I don't read or watch the news at all really. There's never really much good on there quite honestly and I have my doubts about the unbiased nature of much of what is on there.
All this to say I don't know that much about what is going on in Haiti with the earthquake. Most of what I do know comes from reading people's facebook posts and going to a "Haiti Fundraiser" last night. Yep, I contributed my donation to Yele via text msg and contributed again to the relief effort last night. I think relief efforts are great and obviously much needed right about now in Haiti.
These 2 things, however, continue to amaze me about the situation in Haiti:
1) People who say things like "Haiti didn't deserve this." I assume they are referencing the fact that Haiti is basically a destitute "3rd world country" (is that still the term we use for poor countries nowadays?!) with limited infrastructure and a poor health care system. I can't quibble with that...I haven't run the numbers, but I'm sure by any estimation Haiti is poor. But "deserve"?? Thats a strong cup of tea right there. I can't really name any countries who "deserve" to have an earthquake ravage their country and people (maybe short of Nazi Germany and even they had a lot of good, solid people as evidenced by countless movies and stories centering around sympathizers, so they probably wouldn't even make the "deserve" cut.) Earthquakes (like their distant cousins hurricanes, tsunamis, etc.) are natural disasters. No country deserves to have its people die from natural disasters. Lets all agree that "deserved" is probably not the right word to use when referencing Haiti or the killing of innocent people by natural disaster anywhere, irregardless (yes, I know it is not a word but I use a lot of made up words!) of the country's economic status.
2) At last count the Haiti earthquake related death toll was over 70,000 people. That's a ridiculous amount of people. But what's even more ridiculous is society/media playing the whole "shock" and "owe the horror, people are dying in Haiti" card. Clearly, people have been dying by the tens of thousands in Haiti for decades now. Where was all this shock, horror, and grass root effort to save the country??
For example, in 2004 alone 24,000 haitians died of HIV/AIDs. Thousands of children every year are orphaned in Haiti by the epidemic. Approximately 120,000 haitians are living with AIDS today. Unless docs find a cure soon (preferably a free or cheap one!), they're probably not gonna make it either...Don't even get me started on statistics for all the other poverty related type deaths in Haiti(but think thousands of babies dying every year from innocuous things like diarrhea). The point is Haiti has been poor for years now and lots of people have been dying...
Suffice it to say that this is not new information to anyone...indeed, I particularly enjoyed this 2007 Report prepared for Congress by the Congressional Research Service basically screaming for help for Haiti. http://www.haitipolicy.org/images/haiti-crs-report.pdf
It says things like we should start a USAID program to "improve emergency preparedness and disaster mitigation" in Haiti. It also has lots of interesting charts demonstrating things like Haiti has roughly the same population as NY and has a landmass that is 40 times the size of NY, but yet has 4 times less police than NY.
Not shockingly, you will never see reports like these amongst all the media hysteria, in the papers or magazines, on the news, or at fundraisers. Just like it took Hurricane Katrina for America to come to the shocking revalation that a lot of brown people living in America are disturbingly destitute, apparently it takes a devastating earthquake for the world to come to the same conclusion about Haiti. Cuz you know tens of thousands of people dying every year of wholly preventable things (like AIDS, diarrhea, murder, etc.) is not quite newsworthy enough to stir up any outrage or sympahty. Nope, what we should really get all riled up about and launch grassroots save the world campaigns for is all these pesky natural disasters that we have no control over whatsoever.
Anywho, if a natural disaster is what it takes to shed light on all of the real underlying problems going on in Haiti (i.e., rampant poverty) then so be it. And while I'll remain amazed by all the earthquake hoopla (seeing as I'm almost positive there are no plans in place to move the country of Haiti off the fault line anytime soon...)lets just hope that unlike Katrina, this earthquake acutally brings some real and lasting impact and help to the people of Haiti.
While I'm done trying to figure out why one lives and another dies in this crazy, crazy world, "God don't make no mistakes."
All this to say I don't know that much about what is going on in Haiti with the earthquake. Most of what I do know comes from reading people's facebook posts and going to a "Haiti Fundraiser" last night. Yep, I contributed my donation to Yele via text msg and contributed again to the relief effort last night. I think relief efforts are great and obviously much needed right about now in Haiti.
These 2 things, however, continue to amaze me about the situation in Haiti:
1) People who say things like "Haiti didn't deserve this." I assume they are referencing the fact that Haiti is basically a destitute "3rd world country" (is that still the term we use for poor countries nowadays?!) with limited infrastructure and a poor health care system. I can't quibble with that...I haven't run the numbers, but I'm sure by any estimation Haiti is poor. But "deserve"?? Thats a strong cup of tea right there. I can't really name any countries who "deserve" to have an earthquake ravage their country and people (maybe short of Nazi Germany and even they had a lot of good, solid people as evidenced by countless movies and stories centering around sympathizers, so they probably wouldn't even make the "deserve" cut.) Earthquakes (like their distant cousins hurricanes, tsunamis, etc.) are natural disasters. No country deserves to have its people die from natural disasters. Lets all agree that "deserved" is probably not the right word to use when referencing Haiti or the killing of innocent people by natural disaster anywhere, irregardless (yes, I know it is not a word but I use a lot of made up words!) of the country's economic status.
2) At last count the Haiti earthquake related death toll was over 70,000 people. That's a ridiculous amount of people. But what's even more ridiculous is society/media playing the whole "shock" and "owe the horror, people are dying in Haiti" card. Clearly, people have been dying by the tens of thousands in Haiti for decades now. Where was all this shock, horror, and grass root effort to save the country??
For example, in 2004 alone 24,000 haitians died of HIV/AIDs. Thousands of children every year are orphaned in Haiti by the epidemic. Approximately 120,000 haitians are living with AIDS today. Unless docs find a cure soon (preferably a free or cheap one!), they're probably not gonna make it either...Don't even get me started on statistics for all the other poverty related type deaths in Haiti(but think thousands of babies dying every year from innocuous things like diarrhea). The point is Haiti has been poor for years now and lots of people have been dying...
Suffice it to say that this is not new information to anyone...indeed, I particularly enjoyed this 2007 Report prepared for Congress by the Congressional Research Service basically screaming for help for Haiti. http://www.haitipolicy.org/images/haiti-crs-report.pdf
It says things like we should start a USAID program to "improve emergency preparedness and disaster mitigation" in Haiti. It also has lots of interesting charts demonstrating things like Haiti has roughly the same population as NY and has a landmass that is 40 times the size of NY, but yet has 4 times less police than NY.
Not shockingly, you will never see reports like these amongst all the media hysteria, in the papers or magazines, on the news, or at fundraisers. Just like it took Hurricane Katrina for America to come to the shocking revalation that a lot of brown people living in America are disturbingly destitute, apparently it takes a devastating earthquake for the world to come to the same conclusion about Haiti. Cuz you know tens of thousands of people dying every year of wholly preventable things (like AIDS, diarrhea, murder, etc.) is not quite newsworthy enough to stir up any outrage or sympahty. Nope, what we should really get all riled up about and launch grassroots save the world campaigns for is all these pesky natural disasters that we have no control over whatsoever.
Anywho, if a natural disaster is what it takes to shed light on all of the real underlying problems going on in Haiti (i.e., rampant poverty) then so be it. And while I'll remain amazed by all the earthquake hoopla (seeing as I'm almost positive there are no plans in place to move the country of Haiti off the fault line anytime soon...)lets just hope that unlike Katrina, this earthquake acutally brings some real and lasting impact and help to the people of Haiti.
While I'm done trying to figure out why one lives and another dies in this crazy, crazy world, "God don't make no mistakes."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
