Spanish Basketball vs. NFL RACISM-OFF!!!!

As many of you surely know, the Spanish basketball team released a photograph prior to the Olympics that featured them affecting a stereotypical "slant-eye" gesture. Of course, no one said anything about the Chinese response of a photograph of Yao Ming eating traditionally marinated Boquerones. This is kinda lame and easy: yes it's offensive. It's terribly offensive and really stupid and childish and it walks that razor thin line where you're not positive if you're outraged at how racially insensitive it is or just how little thought it took. The real fun, of course, comes when the NFL enters the picture. 

Here's Mr. Irrelevant's take on the Big Lead's take. To summarize: TBL posted that America had no right to be mount a high horse on this issue because of the NFL franchise the Washington Redskins. Mr. Irrelevant points to a poll that shows a whopping 90 percent of American Indians have no problem with the name. It suddenly seems so long ago that Braves, Indians and Redskins' games were being picketed by various American Indian groups who took offense. Where I begin to take issue is the parting shot offered by post author Chris Mottram

Isn’t it a pain in the ass when all those pesky “facts” and “evidence” get in the way of make-believe?

Now, I understand that Mottram is a 'Skins fan and, therefore, justifiable in his defense. Rooting for a sports franchise means accepting the good with the bad, like enjoying the Twins' penchant for winning on the cheap and putting together well-constructed teams while understanding that many fans are still of the opinion that "well-constructed teams" mean "white teams". It's a constant balancing act, and the will to defend stems from the fact that no one wants their favorite sports franchise to be bad in any way. Mottram is also correct in his use of this poll, which (by polling standards) seems to be pretty fair (I would say that 768 is a pretty low sample size, but I doubt a higher one would change the results). 

However...

What is more interesting about this poll is not that so many American Indians are not offended by the name, but why they are not. Being a bleeding heart liberal American Indian myself, I know why I find it offensive: it is a derogatory term for American Indians being used as the name of a professional football team. As TBL said in the original post: 

Say what you want about European racism, but Spanish soccer fans aren’t galloping ignorantly through the gates in blackface to cheer on N—– FC.

(Addendum: I would like to point out that European racism, particularly towards blacks, is fucking terrible and far worse that you will find in most places in America. Remember, as bad as we are we still had to go through that whole Civil Rights thing, which Europe avoided like the Pla...ooh...still feels too soon...)

I do, however, understand that I cannot speak for all American Indians on this issue, and my calling them American Indians illustrates that point. I use that term because the term Native American is not only incredibly bland, but it unfairly incorporates us into the United States and assumes that we had some say in how the modern iteration of this country came to be. American Indian allows me to remember that we are different, that there is a certain pleasantness in the difference, and that it is important to remember how different we once were and how different we will always remain from white folk. 

This does not change the fact that Redskin, no matter how many people find it offensive and no matter what color they are, is an offensive term that was used either a) as a simple descriptor based on skin color or b) based on the blood that came from the head during a scalping. Either one of those leads to a bad word to use to describe an entire group of people (particularly when our skin is, in fact, brown). Mottram is right when he says that not enough people are offended by this word to make it an issue, but chooses to leave it at that. What is not taken into account is the fact that part of the reason that the name is accepted by so many American Indians is that it has been the name of a major football franchise since 1933. There is no way to deny the fact that this has made this word more acceptable that things like the n-word (for African Americans) or the s-word (for people of Latin and South American descent). It also certainly portrays a negative stereotype of American Indians being warlike and savage for the simple fact that the name is used for a team in a competitive physical sport like football. 

The numbers of who is and who isn't offended certainly represent an interesting view of this issue, but they don't tell the whole story. The story is that it is fundamentally wrong for a franchise in any form of business in the 21st Century to name themselves after a derogatory term for a group of people. But, like on so many other issues, I can understand why people would disagree. 

Mr. Miser and the Black Presidential Candidate

I think, as a society, we have a very base understanding of misers. Misers, in our eyes, are very bitter and angry and old men who like to walk about in black felt car coats or (in the warmer months) wool black three-piece suits. They probably have a watch at the end of a fancy chain. There's a chance they have a son named Chad, Gregory, or Winston, and there's a chance they have a daughter named Muffy, Shelia, or Emily (girls names are always less pompous). And, it is assumed, they vote Republican.

Wait, what?

"[Carl] Pohlad, the banker, investor and Twins owner, and his family have contributed or bundled as much as $217,000 for Obama, Politico reported."

Now, the word "bundled" seemed a bit odd to me and my liberal arts education, so I looked it up. According to the same website, Politico:

The participation of these surrogate fundraisers in presidential politics coincides with a rise in campaigns’ reliance on “bundlers,” people who tap into their own networks to steer donations to a candidate.

The system was refined by the past campaigns of President Bush, who nurtured competition between fundraisers who pledged to drive between $100,000 and $200,000 to the 2004 reelection campaign. In exchange, the bundlers gained better access to the president through exclusive events and, potentially, influence after the election.

None of this seems to apply to Old Carl, because he is really really old. Like, super old. Dude's turning 93 later this month, so it doesn't really seem like he's shooting for one of these coveted places within the government. If you've ever seen him at a public event, he seems barely able to stay alive, much less awake, much less awake and resting in his newly-appointed position as Ambassador to Tahiti. This would seem to be coming from the family more, although there isn't available information on individual donations in this story. I really hope it's mostly the family, because that points to them wanting to do the right thing, which would also include signing Gary Sheffield and Barry Bonds and having them hit much home runs.

Overreacting, or, Jesus Christ what the hell are you talking about

This is Oscar Pistorius. You've heard of him. He hasn't all of his legs. He's a runner, and he uses really fancy science legs to run. He is better than pretty much anyone else in the world without legs at running, which might not be saying much of course. He's so good at running without legs that he's starting to compete against people with legs. He's not doing too bad, either. He wants to represent his country in the Olympics.

This is tiny Tim Keown. People call him "tiny" because his penis is terribly small. When Tim sees Oscar Pistorius, Tim doesn't see a guy wanting to get to the Olympics and compete against the very best the world has to offer. Tim sees a guy who wants to cheat.

"Should he be allowed to compete? Of course not. This really isn't that difficult. Pistorius is running on artificial legs, wonders of technology instead of flesh and bone. It's simply not the same."

Tim has basic, cognitive thinking skills. Tim understands that when he sees legs, he is looking at legs. He understands, also, that when he sees long carbon fiber blades he is seeing not legs. As he so eloquently puts it, they are "not the same."

Running is a sport made for people with complete, full legs. Legs that are strong and sturdy and exercised constantly to ensure that they will be able to carry the owner of said legs as swiftly as possible to the intended destination. Legs that were made and created to be able to carry someone to that destination.

Once again, Oscar Pistorius doesn't have a full pair of legs.

Tim Keown thinks that human+science=unfair for sports. He probably thinks about things like steroids and corked bats and those sharkskin swimming suits that they wear these days. Tim Keown believes that if you don't have legs, you simply aren't able to compete with those who do have legs.

"If a legless swimmer showed up at a meet with carbon-fiber flippers, would that be all right? If a legless high-jumper used spring-loaded Cheetahs, would that be allowed?

The truth is, Pistorius has an event, and it's called the Paralympics."

This, to a certain extent, is true. Not the first part. The first part is stupid and makes me sad for Tim Keown because Tim Keown obviously thinks that people who are physically disabled are just like Steve Austin, the Six Million Dollar Man.



Tim Keown sees Oscar Pistorius run and goes "OH COOL" and then gets jealous and then writes about how he shouldn't be allowed to compete in the Olympics.

However, that is neither here nor there. I want to focus on the idea from that second part - the idea that Pistorius has his "event" in the Paralympics.

Imagine you're playing a game of tetherball. With no one. No one is made of a gaseous compound called Oxygen, thus having no arms to hit the ball with. You hit the ball. It goes around the pole on the tether. It hits the pole. You win. You won, of course, but it isn't terribly fun, is it? So you call your friend, who is made up of something Tim Keown would call old and out of date, and you play him. Let's say your friend's name is Billy. Billy is pretty good at tetherball. You play him a few times, and you split a few games. However, then you start pounding on Billy. Billy is helpless. Billy has never seen a ball that is physically connected to a tether move with such velocity. He can do nothing. However, Billy thinks you can't beat his older brother, Steve. Billy calls Steve, and Steve meets you to play. Steve is 14 and just got suspended from school for talking about Ellie Walcott's vagina in class, which he claims to have seen. Steve works out a lot and plays three sports. You're pretty sure you can't beat Steve unless you try really hard. So you practice and try really hard for about three weeks. Three weeks is a lot of time for tetherball. You've gotten to the level where Steve no longer pummels you, but you win some and he wins some and it's all fun competition.

Now, imagine that you were missing your right arm, and instead had it replaced with a carbon fiber blade. Does it change the story? Not really, because you still had to work really hard, and your lack of arm isn't of any serious advantage (even though scientists studied you for months and stated that it was).

Oscar Pistorius is better than just about anyone without legs at running. He is so good, in fact, that his times in the 100, 200, and 400 m para races are World Records. Oscar's opponents in the paralympics are a sea of Billys. Billys get boring after awhile. You want to try to beat the best. That's what makes a sport fun.

Somehow, to Tim Keown, this isn't a triumph. This isn't amazing. This is wrong.

A few years ago, Annika Sorenstam wanted to play in tournaments against men. Some people got really mad, and some even threatened to join the LPGA and play against women. These people are fucking stupid, as are the people who dont want Oscar Pistorius to compete in the Olympics, as is Tim Keown. Why?

Because those people are foolishly trying to tell an athlete that said athlete should not try to tackle the hardest opponents possible. Because those people think difference is all that matters, and other factors such as harder competition and greater pressure and a larger stage don't matter. Because these people, for some fucking reason, believe that being "different" is somehow an advantage.

Oscar Pistorius probably won't make the Olympics. He probably isn't fast enough yet. I hope he does. A sport covered with such terrible news recently as track running could use a story of someone who wanted to run more than anything in the world, even though he was born without complete legs. Seems like a good story.

And if that happens, you can bet Tim Keown will be tapping out little open-and-shut case arguments about Oscar. And with every word, Tim will be feeding ironic vibrations throughout the world, as he smiles dumbly, fabulously proud of the fact that he is the only living sportswriter without a functioning brain.

Not to mention the small penis.

Steve McNair = Still no love

Has anyone had more undeserved shit kicked all over them than Steve McNair? He played the quarterback position in a loose, free-flowing way and got hit like fucking 38,000 times over his career and still got back up. He wasn't a Hall of Fame QB by any stretch, but Jesus Christ he wasn't bad at it. Yet he was constantly maligned for being a poor passer, he was famously locked out of his team's practice facility - with no one really arguing for his defense - and he finally ended a good career (60% career completions, 55 more touchdowns than interceptions, over 3,500 rushing yards) in Baltimore where he was constantly called over the hill. 

Alright. Fine. He retired. He finally got out and everyone can get on with their lives, right? 

Mike Florio begs to differ: 

2. McNair waited too long to quit.
It came as a surprise to many when Baltimore Ravens quarterback Steve McNair announced his retirement in the days leading up to the draft. And presuming the announcement also came as news to the Ravens, it would have been much nicer if McNair had made his intentions known weeks earlier. That would have allowed the Ravens to explore options on the free-agent market, such as Todd Collins, the Redskins’ backup who played well down the stretch and who could have been a potential bridge at the position while a draft pick got ready to play.

So many things bother me about this paragraph that I will use a numerical list to emphasize how stupid this is: 

1. Steve McNair is 35 years old and is famous for taking a beating. Last season he played in six games due to injury. Even if he hadn't told anyone that he was retiring, chances are that he would not be playing a full season next year due to injury as well, because he is kinda old and gets hit a lot. 
2. Troy Smith wasn't terrible in four games last year. He had a very common-looking rookie season. He doesn't seem like a terrible option as a bridge to the future - hell, he could actually be the future. Did you think about that one?
3. Todd fucking Collins. Really. The Ravens are crying in their oatmeal because the lost out on the Collins lottery. 

That is followed by: 

As it played out, the Ravens were forced to target a quarterback in Round 1. They reportedly wanted to trade up for a crack at Matt Ryan; instead they traded down and then up (taking a bath on the points chart in the process) to get Delaware’s Joe Flacco.

First of all, weren't you just talking about bridging a gap....TO A DRAFT PICK? Like SOMEONE CHOSEN IN THE DRAFT?!?! Like possibly THE SECOND BEST QUARTERBACK IN THE DRAFT? Also, how did the fact that McNair retired just before the draft force the Ravens to draft a QB in the first round? Again: McNair is 35, and he has tons of miles on that body. As much as I love Steve McNair, he was not a viable option for the Ravens anymore. Troy Smith looks like he could be a decent starter, but Quarterback has been a huge problem for the Ravens for so long that drafting the second best quarterback in the draft makes sense. So why is this a problem decision?

(Oh yeah, what does "Taking a bath on the points chart" mean? Are you talking about those damn draft ranking things that are like one half college statistics and the other half pure conjecture about things like "intensity" and that shit? Those things that are often proven wrong? Goodness I hope that's not what we're talking about.)

In the end, all will be forgotten if Flacco flourishes in his first season or two. But if Flacco flounders initially, Ravens fans can thank McNair for not retiring early enough.

I can't stand this. I just cannot even come near to considering standing this. Steve McNair, a guy who obviously loves football, loves playing quarterback, loves putting his team on his back and trying to make things happen. The guy who almost won a Super Bowl with a ridiculous drive that came up one yard short of beating a team with one of the most remarkable offenses of the last 20 years. The guy who (entirely conjecture, sorry) probably had to think long and hard about his body, his mind, his ability to lead a football team, his future, his family, and all kinds of other things before deciding it was his time to hang it up. This is a difficult decision for someone who does something they love for a living. And the problem here is that McNair did not make this super-difficult decision soon enough to help out a team that he had played two years for? Brett Favre gets to create a media circus over his retirement, but McNair didn't do it soon enough? What the hell, man?

Seriously, though: Todd fucking Collins. 

The premier of Overreacting

In the spirit of this blog (this spirit includes fighting racism and two month long hiatuses), I am taking it upon myself to catalog the overreactions of the sports media. You've all seen these stupid things - arrests, pictures at strip clubs, marijuana use. The things that get Skip Bayless real riled up (other things that get Skip Bayless real riled up: ping pong, Denny's breakfast, new born babies). 

This is Marvin William's fouling Rajon Rondo. Hard. If you are getting all up in arms (preferably muskets) about me putting this in something called Overreacting, calm down. This is an example. This allllmost made the cut. In fact, it could make the cut if people continue to talk about it. However, so far the only people actually overreacting about this are the announcers (sort of) and the commenters on youtube, who fall to pieces over much less. 

Mostly I believe this is how all Celtic players should be treated, and I think this video is hi-lar-i-ous. (jk bff Rondo) (not really)

This 

...this is overreacting. Not what these people are doing. These trainers and jockeys and whatnot are doing what you sadly must do when a horse suffers that type of injury. Not take it to a hospital and have massive surgery done on it like Barbaro (perhaps if Eight Belles had won, it would be a different story), but euthanized. It's a shame, to be sure. Totally sure. Completely 100% sure. 

However, 

why is this considered a tragedy? This is a sport where people are paid money to ride atop animals and hit them with riding crops. This is not a great sport when it comes to animal rights or health. Hell, another damn trainer seems to agree: 

...to horse people like Rick Dutrow Jr., who trains Kentucky Derby winner Big Brown, it wasn't all that simple.

"To make it safer, don't race the horses, don't train them, then they'll live good lives out on the farm," Dutrow Jr. said.

"But you have to train them for races, you have to run them and that's where the problems start to set in. They have to be asked to run and sometimes in a particular minute, they're asked to run when they're not ready to give it and then it hurts."

These things have to be expected from horse racing. Sure it sucks, but it's not a tragedy. It's a horse running really hard and then breaking its ankle and having to be put down. It's a horse some people thought was pretty, which turns it into a tragedy. 

Also, fuck horses. 

This is stupid. Horses get way more love than any other animal combined. It's disgusting when they're eaten, it's sad when they die, one horse breaks its leg after winning a horse race and the entire world loses their shit over the thing. Most people don't care when they eat a cow! Wearing leather doesn't seem to mind to most of these people. So what makes this different? Is it just because they saw it on TV? Is it just because they 

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Sorry, I take it all back. 

RIP Eight Belles. You're in horse heaven with Barbaro, Mr. Ed, Bandit, and every other horse that gets to spend eternity shitting on cow heaven. 

Woo! We won the Hernandez sweepstakes!

Holy hell! Livan Hernandez? LIVAN FUCKING HERNANDEZ? I love Livan Hernandez!

WHEN HE'S FUCKING NOT 78 YEARS OLD. 

No, no! Of course: this is a great idea! It's an old player who seemingly doesn't have much less in the tank that can come in and fill an immediate and necessary need. Just like Tony Batista, Rondell White, Bret Boone and Ruben Sierra! Think about it: we can just keep doing this to balance out the lineup so that our mean age will be smack in the middle! Age and experience! Here's a mock-up of the perfect Twins lineup and rotation:

1. Rickey Henderson

2. Joe Mauer

3. Chili Davis

4. Justin Morneau

5. Buck O'Neal's corpse

6. Aborted Fetus 

7. Like, we go to an alternate universe where Bob Allison is still alive.

8. Delmon Young 

9. Nick Punto

We can throw Juan Marichal and Liriano in the world's first two man rotation just for fucking kix. 

After the Santana trade, I more or less assumed that we were attempting to solidify a team roster that could carry us until the new stadium, and maybe it still can. And maybe Livan has a couple more good years in him, and maybe he'll help Baker and Bonser along. And maybe the fact that Hernandez is only 32 will outweigh the fact that his arm has thrown enough innings to see the Truman regime. And maybe I can live in a happy gumdrop world where my two favorite Twins weren't given away for a bowl of lukewarm prospect gruel. 

/drinks

Dr. Z and the racism

So here's what's fun about Dr. Z's recent NFL commentator evaluation. Like so much modern sports writing, it has just a hint of racism. A dash, if you will. Let's show some evidence.

First, here's some praise for FOX NFL commentator Tim Ryan:

How good is Ryan? Well, how many analysts will tell you who the good BLOCKERS are on kickoff returns? Arizona-Washington -- "Watch Lorenzo Alexander reject Jerheme Urban out of the wedge ..." Kaboom! A former superstar is slipping, he'll tell you about it. The Seahawks' Walter Jones gets stuffed by Cleveland's Robaire Smith on a running play: "You wonder about Walter Jones," says Ryan, who, unlike most of his brethren, does not blindly plug the stars. The Browns' line goes unbalanced on a play, he catches it immediately. He and Rosen routinely will call penalties before the flags are dropped. Rosen is meticulous about telling you who's on the field, when a team goes into a different personnel grouping. There are snappers, too. The Saints' Reggie Bush loses ground, trying to put on a fancy move. "Think four and you'll get more," Ryan mutters. In his and Sam's case, four and a half.

Not so bad, right? Here's some more, now commenting on the NBC team of Madden and Michaels:

The only thing I ever had against this team was that their attention span would occasionally flag if a game were dull, and they'd get away from it and onto topics of the day. Someone must have had a talk with them at NBC because that hasn't seemed to be a problem anymore. And as I've written before about Sunday night's increased technical equipment, it makes for more comfortable watching, all around. John still has the pipelines to feed him the cogent observation, such as noting that "the Patriots' defense is set up not to let you complete passes outside ... you have to go inside." And he can still bring it when the mood seizes him. On the running style of the Jaguars' tiny Maurice Jones-Drew -- "He can run straight up and still get low."

Again, nothing out of the ordinary. Maybe loses some points for the brushing over of Michaels' lame-duck style and some old-hat statements about Madden, but still innocuous for the most part.

Here's where it gets interesting. When talking about the team of Marshall Faulk and Deion Sanders (the bolds are mine):

When Deion and Faulk did Cincinnati-San Francisco in Week 15, I was stunned by their insight. I mean, they were giving us stuff such as: Deion on Chad Johnson -- "Any time Chad's in the slot, he's not going deep." Faulk on Johnson vs. T.O. -- "T.O.'s always looking to score, Chad's looking to fall down, after he runs a slant." I mean it was a clinic, a scouting report. Then I thought it through. This is the league's network. It's in its best interest if its broadcast team remained informed. Either Cincy coach Marvin Lewis briefed the boys on the ins and outs of his personnel, or some scout did, because I just don't believe these two announcers would figure this stuff out on their own. Their stuff only served to render more inane Steve Mariucci's comments that followed, during the break. But if they can provide enlightenment, why knock it, no matter where it comes from.

Now, it is immediately followed by a dig at a white guy, to be sure. But looking at the other analysis by Dr. Z on this page, two things become clear:

1. The white guys don't get criticized.
2. The white guys definitely don't get called boys.

Also dangerous here is the insinuation that Sanders and Faulk get all their information from either scouting reports or talking to coaches. While this may be true, this very well could be true for everyone, white or black. However, Tim Ryan and Tony Boselli get nothing but praise for their keen awareness and analysis, with nary a thought to the preparation they might have gone through. Look at this section about Boselli:

Wow, what a terrific rookie season for big Tony. First look -- that's when he'll see the play in its entirety, before he has the luxury of the replay. This, of course, is the test. He'll diagram the line play, as well, swiftly and accurately. Coverages, too. Nothing like young eyes, folks. He'll pick up blitz schemes, he'll rip the stars as well as the ordinary Joes, which is unusual: "Edgerrin James got off the line too quickly," which was why he was stopped. "Ernie Sims came in high on that one," which was why Marcel Shipp got a touchdown over him. "Frank Gore missed the pick-up," which was why the rush forced an incomplete. Seems trivial, but there are guys who will never criticize a big name player.

I think Dr. Z has wood. Later in that same paragraph, about Boselli's (black) partner, Ron Pitts:

Pittsie, once a five-star Z announcer, has been bouncing around for a while, but he's latched onto a good partner here.

Which, of course, does a good bit to make Pitts sounds like a parasite. Pleasant.

I understand how nitpicky this all is. Also, I understand that Dr. Z is more than likely not a huge hood-wearing racist. However, it's very clear that there's a lack of equal ground being portrayed here. This almost certainly was not a conscious decision by Dr. Z to take some black guys down a peg. This is simply another example to add to the pile of subtly inequitable language used between whites and blacks in sports journalism.