CBS Brings Mixed Martial Arts to Major Network TV
'Big Four' network brings original programming to Saturday nights, chasing MMA's upscale, young audience.
Continue reading "CBS Brings Mixed Martial Arts to Major Network TV" »
February 28, 2008
February 13, 2008
Clemens and the Constitution
As former Major League Baseball pitcher Roger Clemens testifies before a congressional committee investigating allegations of the use of performance enhancing drugs in the sport, the observations in my Tech Central Station article during the last big government investigation into the matter apply as strongly as ever:
Continue reading "Clemens and the Constitution" »
February 05, 2008
Bobby Knight Retires - Unlamented by Weenies
The winningest coach in college basketball history, Bobby Knight, retired unexpectedly yesterday with several games remaining in the season.
Knight, known both for his coaching brilliance and angry, public and private tirades, has long been a big target of criticism from sportswriters.
A large part of that criticism is well-earned, for Knight has always been thoroughly uncompromising in his insistence that his teams play the game the way it should be played and that others involved in the game reach similar standards, and he often manifested it in childish behavior, verbal aggression, and physical violence.
Continue reading "Bobby Knight Retires - Unlamented by Weenies" »
February 04, 2008
Super Bowl, Miley Cyrus Rule the Weekend
Everyone in America either watched the Super Bowl or went to the Miley Cyrus movie last weekend, as wholesome entertainment triumphed both on television and in theaters.
Continue reading "Super Bowl, Miley Cyrus Rule the Weekend" »
January 29, 2008
Jacobson's Back, Protesters Unsatisfied
ESPN2 morning co-anchor Dana Jacobson is back at work after a week's suspension for her drunken, foul-mouthed tirade at a public dinner.
At the beginning of the Jan. 28 program, the first since her suspension, Jacobson offered a rather cryptic apology:
I want to once again say how truly sorry I am for my poor choices and bad judgment that night. I've taken responsibility for what I did say and do that night.
What's cryptic about it, of course, is the phrase "what I did say and do". Certainly no one should expect her to apologize for anything she did not do, so the use of the word 'did' is redundant and indeed confusing.
Evidently her intent was to imply that she did not say the most offensive thing attributed to her: "F— Jesus!"
Yet neither Jacobson nor her ESPN bosses has denied that she said it. Hence the use of the word 'did' is obviously intentional dissembling.
Continue reading "Jacobson's Back, Protesters Unsatisfied" »
December 12, 2007
Thanks but No Bloody Thanks, Sen. Kerry
Senator's thinly veiled threat of congressional action to ensure fans see New England football game is emblematic of what's wrong with America's government today.
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) has decided to step forward to handle one of the great crises of our time.
No, not the War on Terror, concerns about global warming, or increasing access to good health care.
Continue reading "Thanks but No Bloody Thanks, Sen. Kerry" »
September 10, 2007
Defending the Indefensible, Based on Skin Color
The journalist and novelist Mark Goldblatt has frequently gone out on a limb to criticize insalubrious aspects of today's black American culture, an activity that tends to bring anger, fear, scorn, and general cultural exile. His posture is truly a courageous one, and it is highly salutary for black Americans, who, like all of us, cannot reach their great potential unless they are held to the same high expectations as other Americans.
Hence Goldblatt's excellent National Review Online article today on Michael Vick and on Whoopi Goldberg's absurd defense of him on the TV program The View is very important indeed. Goldblatt writes,
Continue reading "Defending the Indefensible, Based on Skin Color" »
May 09, 2007
Should MLB Teams Ban Alcohol or Alcoholics?
Columnist Greg Couch agrees that nobody is to blame for St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Josh Hancock's death by automobile accident but Josh Hancock. Couch writes,
Continue reading "Should MLB Teams Ban Alcohol or Alcoholics?" »
May 07, 2007
The Culture of Personal Irresponsibility
A column by Chicago Sun-Times sportswriter Rick Telander this past weekend, "La Russa Crying in His Beer," exemplifies a mentality, a cultural perspective, that is extremely common these days, and very dangerous.
Telander basically blames La Russa and, secondarily, the St. Louis Cardinals' owners, for Cardinal pitcher Josh Hancock's death by automible accident a week ago.
Telander couldn't be more wrong, and his well-meaning moralism will in fact do much harm and no good.
Continue reading "The Culture of Personal Irresponsibility" »
April 11, 2007
Last Charges Against Duke Lacrosse Players to Be Dropped—Case Still Not Over, However
AP reports that North Carolina officials have decided to drop the remaining charges against the three Duke lacrosse players who were falsely accused of rape, kidnapping, and sexual offense and indicted by prosecutor Thomas Nifong in an obvious bid to garner votes from a certain class of persons in his reelection campaign:
State prosecutors have decided to drop all charges against three Duke lacrosse players accused of sexual assaulting a stripper at a team party, a person close to the case told The Associated Press on Wednesday.
The North Carolina Attorney General's office, which took over the case in January after the local district attorney was accused of ethics violations, said it would have an announcement on the case at 2:30 p.m.
That's the right thing to do, but there's much more work to be done. Nifong must be brought to account for his despicable misdeeds in the Duke false prosecution scandal.
March 13, 2007
Homosexuals Pursue Dungy
Homosexual activists are attacking Super Bowl-winning Indianapolis Colts head coach Tony Dungy for agreeing to attend a dinner to accept an award from an organization that promotes traditional family values.
Interestingly, Dungy has not said anything against homosexuality himself, but is being attacked simply for going to dinner with people who oppose the idea of changing marriage laws to force private citizens and organizations to acknowledge "same-sex marriages."
Jim Buzinski, co-founder of OutSports.com, a Web site aimed at the homosexual audience, claims that Indiana Family Institute (IFI) is a political organization.
"He is speaking at the dinner next week in front of group that is very much a political organization," Buzinski said.
IFI President Curt Smith said neither the dinner nor the award is political."The purpose of this award is to celebrate those who live out the family ethic that we think is at the heart of a healthy and successful society," Smith said. "There was no five-point quiz where he had to agree with us on a number of public policy questions. In inviting him and then following up with a letter, we didn't discuss public policy."
Jim Daly, president of Focus on the Family Action, said gay groups would like to silence anyone they perceive as opposing the gay agenda -- even a celebrated athlete or coach.
Exactly. In fact, I believe that these activists are intent on going after prominent sports figures in particular, because seeing their heads on the activists' pikes sends a powerful message to the hoi polloi, especially young men.
This effort by homosexual activists is also clearly an attack on Christians, part of a concerted attempt to drive Christianity from the public square altogether after forcibly removing it from all possible support by government, to the point of even shredding any implicit endorsement that might be made. Now all public expression of Christian values is increasingly under attack. As Daly of Focus on the Family puts it:
"Unfortunately, this is becoming a pattern for those that oppose Christianity," he added. "They want to control our speech in the public square, embarrass us and try to belittle us. It really is a form of fascism."
The activists' strategy has worked thus far, as shown in the case of NBA player Tim Hardaway, whose public statement of intense disdain for homosexuality ignited a furor of attacks against him and an explicit attempt to destroy him both socially and economically.
When one side fights and the other doesn't, guess who wins?
My guess is that this attack won't succeed, because Dungy is too well-liked, too diplomatic, and too strong-willed to be taken down at this time.
You may rest assured, however, that the homosexual activists' attacks on sports figures will continue and intensify.
February 26, 2007
The Black Ku Klux Klan
The old joke used to be that a neoconservative is a liberal who has been mugged. The increasing lawlessness of American athletes has a lot of liberals reconsidering their willingness to excuse outrageous behavior as simply an inevitable byproduct of poverty, or worse, as an alternative culture that has a validity of its own.
Player representatives to the NFL Players Association—the players' union—have asked the organization to crack down on players involved in criminal behavior, and Chicago Sun-Times sports columnist Rick Telander, a liberal himself, writes about the increasing mood of disenchantment with wealthy young thugs making trouble in public.
Violence seems to break out all too often where prominent athletes gather, in recent years, and the incidence is clearly rising. Telander has had enough, and he senses that many others who hold liberal views like him are coming to feel the same way, realizing that the behavior of these wealthy, privileged thugs reflects a horrible reality of life in American neighborhoods:
I sense a change in the air. I sense for the first time that Americans -- black, white, brown -- have had enough of the nonsense from the sports and entertainment world, enough of the thuggery and violence in words and deeds disguised as the art of ''being real,'' enough of lawlessness masquerading as social acting out, enough of immoral, discourteous and criminal behavior being tolerated because it is expression or rebellion or anything other than what it is: bad stuff.
I say this in the aftershock of an NFL season that saw so many players arrested, it seemed like a casting call for prison sports.
''It has to stop,'' said Cincinnati Bengals quarterback Carson Palmer, steward of a team with nine players arrested in 13 months. ''It's ridiculous.''
I make my observation with the foul stench of the NBA All-Star Weekend in Las Vegas redolent in the air, with the January shooting death of the Denver Broncos' Darrent Williams still lingering, with the questioning of Tennessee Titans cornerback Adam ''Pacman'' Jones for his alleged involvement in a hideous brawl and multiple shootings at the Vegas strip club Minxx right there for all to stare at and gag upon.
The cult of lawlessness that has made some black American neighborhoods as dangerous as Baghdad, that has made many of our inner-city schools resemble locked-down gang fortresses, that has created an atmosphere that terrifies law-abiding mothers and fathers into cowering behind locked doors at night, fearful of the stray bullet that might choose one of their children -- this has reached critical mass.
What has made this mess possible, Telander acknowledges, is that the mainstream media and political leaders have avoided taking a stand on such lawlessness because it is concentrated so heavily among African-Americans.
Now, however, Telander realizes that this "cult of lawlessness" hurts everyone, especially black people. The latter are subjected to continual intimidation and criminal depredation from a sizeable African-American criminal class that is every bit as brutal toward black Americans as the Ku Klux Klan was decades ago. Telander quotes AOL sports columnist Jason Whitlock, an African-American, on the subject:
'We have a problem in the black community, and it didn't make its debut at All-Star Weekend in Vegas,'' writes AOL.com sports columnist Jason Whitlock, a black man whom I admire and consider a friend. ''What was impossible to ignore in Vegas was on display in Houston, Atlanta and previous All-Star locations.''
Whitlock, a large, intimidating-looking fellow who played Division I football and was nauseated by the thug posturing in Vegas, goes on to say that with the exception of Louis Farrakhan's 1995 Million Man March, black thuggishness ''has been on display nearly every time we've gathered in large groups to socialize in the past 15 years or so.''
A more severe condemnation could hardly be imagined. Understandably, Whitlock is disgusted by this situation. Telander continues:
His name for the criminals and malevolent poseurs who show up to ''ruin our good time''?
The Black Ku Klux Klan.
' In one of the strongest, most fearless statements of post-Civil Rights disgust you will read anywhere, Whitlock writes, ''instead of wearing white robes and white hoods, the new KKK has now taken to wearing white T's and calling themselves gangsta rappers, gangbangers and posse members.
''Just like the White KKK of the 1940s and '50s, we fear them, keep our eyes lowered, shut our mouths and pray they don't bother us. Our fear makes them stronger. Our silence empowers them. Our excuse-making . .. increases their influence.''
Telander concludes that it shouldn't surprise us that NFL players are asking their union to crack down on the substantial criminal element among the league's players, who bring shame upon the league as a whole:
Hating anarchy should have nothing to do with profession or status.
And certainly not with color.
That's right, Rick. Glad to have you on board.
February 22, 2007
Hardaway Controversy: Michael Medved Joins the Fray
As Carl Olsen noted in our comments section, writer and radio host Michael Medved has weighed in on the Tim Hardaway controversy, agreeing with the points I've made here.
Independently arriving at most of the same conclusions I have outlined in my analyses on the subject on this site, Medved agrees with my point that Hardaway was correct to apologize for using the word "hate" in describing his feelings about homosexuals, and with my observation that most people feel fundamentally uncomfortable with the presence of homosexuality:
Hardaway appropriately apologized for his harsh remarks, but many (if not most) Americans no doubt share his instinctive reluctance to share showers and locker rooms with open homosexuals. That reluctance also explains the controversial Defense Department policy that prevents out-of-the-closet gays from serving in the United States military.
Medved also points out that Hardaway's discomfort at the idea of being undressed around homosexuals is a perfectly sensible attitude:
In the wake of the nearly-universal condemnation of Tim Hardaway’s statements to a radio interviewer, the substantive issue remains. Is it a reasonable for an NBA basketball player (or a soldier in basic training, for that matter) to feel uncomfortable sharing intimate quarters with a homosexual, or does this represent an outrageous, irrational fear? In response to the Hardaway controversy, several sports columnists compared his resistance to the idea of playing alongside gay teammates to the racism of previous years when white players tried to avoid competing with (or against) blacks.
The analogy is ridiculous, of course. There is no rational basis for discomfort at playing with athletes of another race since science and experience show that human racial differences remain insignificant. The much better analogy for discomfort at gay teammates involves the widespread (and generally accepted) idea that women and men shouldn’t share locker rooms. Making gay males unwelcome in the intimate circumstances of an NBA team makes just as much sense as making straight males unwelcome in the showers for a women’s team at the WNBA. Most female athletes would prefer not to shower together with men not because they hate males (though some of them no doubt do), but because they hope to avoid the tension, distraction and complication that prove inevitable when issues of sexual attraction (and even arousal) intrude into the arena of competitive sports.
The parenthetical expression "though some of them no doubt do" is pricelessly funny.
Medved also alludes to the argument that revulsion toward homosexuality is a common human trait that may well have a genetic component, though he only glancingly treats the issue:
Many gay activists suggest that this near-universal straight male repulsion at the idea of sex with another man is merely the product of cultural conditioning: a learned prejudice that ought to be unlearned. This represents the core message of gay pride parades and even the drive for same-sex marriage: an effort to persuade all of society that gay sex is as beautiful as straight sex, and to “cure” men of their visceral disgust at the very thought of what two (or more) male homosexuals do with one another.
According to the “enlightened” advocates of gay liberation, this disgust gets to the very essence of “homophobia” – an altogether unjustified fear and distaste for male-on-male physical intimacy. When Hardaway says “I hate gay people” what he suggests at the deepest level is that he feels revolted by the very notion of same-sex eroticism and that he’d prefer not to face the distraction of such thoughts in the locker room or on the court.
Unfortunately, Medved never suggests any natural, noncultural reason why people have this revulsion. Hence he doesn't offer any real refutation to the notion that a discomfort with homosexual behavior is a mutable characteristic, a "product of cultural conditioning, . . a learned prejudice that ought to be unlearned," as he aptly summarizes the argument. My suggestion, that this atitude is genetically coded into human beings, adds the necessary element to the mix: a theory of human nature, a hypothesis about natural laws, that makes it possible to argue against the "homophobia as purely cultural artifact" thesis behind modern elite attitudes toward homosexual behavior and reactions of heterosexuals toward it. Medved usefully argues about the power of the sexual urge in adult human beings, and observes that denying the impact of this reality creates foolish and insane ideas:
Those who insist that basketball teams or submarine crews must welcome gay recruits must, for the sake of consistency, argue for the same welcome to teammates of the opposite gender. That notion – that a male player could, for instance, join a WNBA team without serious problems – shows the way that political correctness now seems to deny the obvious, often overwhelming potency of human sexuality.
Those who suggest that a guy could shower with young female athletes without risk of arousal, or that a gay guy could shower with young male athletes with[out] problems or discomfort, don’t merely defy common sense. They ignore human nature.
It's great to see Mike Medved join the fray, and it will be interesting to know whether this will broaden the discussion further, at least on the right, to consider more of the important implications of this serious news event.
February 21, 2007
Broussard on Homosexuality and Tolerance
As we noted yesterday, in the post immediately below, most of the intellectual-political-culltural publications on the right have been curiously silent regarding the Tim Hardaway controversy. Interestingly, the most forthright defense of Hardaway's position from any writer other than your intrepid correspondent has come from ESPN.com's Chris Broussard.
Actually, Broussard's column was posted on his ESPN blog on the very day Hardaway made his comments, before the controversy broke. Hence, Broussard defended Hardaway's position without actually mentioning Hardaway, for the very good reason that Hardaway hadn't made his comments yet.
Broussard opens the piece by saying that he thinks the NBA is ready for an openly homosexual player. He doesn't believe that all players will embrace the reality by any means, but that they will "tolerate" it. He notes that most of the comments by NBA players about former NBA player John Amaechi's disclosure of his homosexuality have been very cautious and politically correct.
This publicly welcoming attitude, however, is not what the vast majority of players, or American males in general, really feel, Broussard observed:
Go talk to guys at an open gym in your neighborhood, and lots of the comments won't be so polite.
But America has become so politically correct -- not to mention that, in my opinion, much of the media and Hollywood are promoting the idea that homosexuality is a normal lifestyle -- that many players are afraid to voice their true feelings publicly.
His observation about players' fears would be proven all too true later than day when the attack on Hardaway flared up.
Broussard then offered his own thoughts about homosexuality:
I'm a born-again, Bible-believing Christian (no, I'm not a member of the Religious Right). And I'm against homosexuality (I believe it's a sin) and same-sex marriage.
But before you label me "homophobic," know that I'm against any type of sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman. That includes heterosexual fornication (premarital sex).
Some cats in the NBA run around, sleeping with different women in every city -- I don't agree with their lifestyles.
Some players run around, cheating on their wives -- I don't agree with their lifestyles.
It's all wrong to me and against the biblical teachings I believe in.
Does that make him intolerant? Far from it. Broussard gives examples from his own life to show what tolerance really means, regarding an amateur basketball teammate of his, nicknamed LZ:
LZ and I know where each other stand and we respect each other's right to believe as he does.
I know he's gay, and he knows I believe that's a sin. I know he thinks I get my moral standards from an outdated, mistranslated book, and he knows I believe he needs to change his lifestyle. Still, we can laugh together, and play ball together.
That's real diversity. Disagreeing but not being disagreeable.
Broussard thus goes right to the main point of this whole affair, which is that disagreeing about some issues is no longer even possible, as power will simply be arrayed against those who don't reflect current opinions as to what constitute's enlightened thinking:
Since Amaechi came out, I've read lots of columns about being "progressive." The implication -- or outright assertion -- is that anyone who believes homosexuality is wrong is not progressive or enlightened.
That's where this thing becomes problematic, because those who hold to that view are saying I must change my entire belief system/religion because of your belief system.
Where's the diversity in that?
Those folks don't want diversity. They want everyone to agree with their "enlightened" opinion.
Broussard says that just as he does not (as he surely cannot) expect the pro-homosexuality forces to change their minds on this very basic issue, they have no right to try to force him to alter his opinion, either. That's part of tolerance, too:
Look, I'll accept your right to have your own belief system and to live as you please, but I'm not changing mine. Diversity is not just accepting alternatives to what has long been perceived as normal, but it's accepting the significant number of people who hold to long-standing "traditional" beliefs as well.
Millions of Christians who follow the Bible -- and Muslims who follow the Koran and Jews who follow the Torah, as well as many nonreligious Americans -- believe homosexuality is wrong.
That doesn't mean they're unenlightened. That just means their moral code doesn't fluctuate based on society's ever-changing standards. As long as we're not being violent toward one another, as long as we can be civil, everything should be fine. We don't have to agree.
Brossard calls for simple acceptance that some people think differently from oneself, a premise that should be a given in any decent society:
I'm not trying to get into a religious or scientific discussion here, I'm just saying that some people will accept homosexuality as fine and others will not.
Some will write me off as a bigot for this article, but folks, this is real talk. Unfortunately, we can't have real talk in America nowadays.
Whites can't voice their real opinions -- no matter how legitimate -- about race for fear of being called racist, and everyone's afraid of offending anyone. It seems the only person who can be openly criticized, or disagreed with, is the President.
How crazy is that?
Until we can honestly hear each other out -- and be civil while doing so -- we won't get anywhere. One thing I hope this article does is encourage people to have frank discussions about sensitive issues such as this one.
Here's the bottom line: If I can accept working side-by-side with a homosexual, then he/she can accept working side-by-side with someone who believes homosexuality is wrong.
If an NBA player can accept playing with a homosexual, then the homosexual must accept playing with guys who don't agree with his lifestyle.
The reaction to Broussard's article strongly confims my observation that the great majority of Americans today (like the great majority of people throughout human history) are very uncomfortable with homosexuality and prefer not to have it pressed into their lives, greatly wishing to be allowed to have at least a "live and let live" attitude toward it:
I received nearly 1,000 e-mails, some of them coming from as far away as Australia, Italy, France, New Zealand and Japan. And believe it or not, I read every one of them.
I had many reasons for writing the blog, one of them being my belief that I represented a viewpoint that was widely held but going largely unheard.
I figured there would be a lot of support, but also a lot of hate. I thought there would be roughly a 50-50 split.
I was wrong.
More than 90 percent of the responses I received were positive.
The responses could be broken down into three categories:
1. Those who were in complete agreement with my viewpoint. About 65 percent of the e-mails fell into this category.
2. Those who disagreed with my thinking on homosexuality but loved the overall tenor of the article. This group included several homosexuals. About 25 percent of the e-mails fell into this category.
3. Those who bashed me. Less than 10 percent of the responses were like this.
Broussard's article and the reaction to it confirm that the American elites who are trying to force open approval of homosexuality on the entire population are pushing against a very powerful and prevalent discomfort with the subject and are becoming increasingly nasty and forceful in their efforts to indoctrinate and coerce the public to accept the elites' point of view.
It also confirms that the great majority of Americans just want to be left alone to think what they think about the subject, and that they will surely tolerate the existence of this thing they don't like if they are allowed simply to go on with their lives without having to pretend to approve of it.
That's not too much to ask of a civilized society.
Too bad we don't live in one.
February 20, 2007
Eerie Silence on the Right Regarding Hardaway Controversy
I've done a quick check of the major intellectual magazines on the right—such as National Review, The American Spectator, The Weekly Standard, The American Conservative, Christianity Today, First Things, The American, Chronicles, etc., plus the Opinion Journal, TCS Daily, FrontPage magazine, and Focus on the Family sites, and I found not a single article on the controversy over former NBA star Tim Hardaway's comments opposing homosexuality.
This is rather surprising given that Hardaway's comments set off a fusillade of hatred toward him and a blatant attempt to destroy not only his reputation but his livelihood as an example to all who would question the elite's attitude on this matter or any other it finds particularly important to its agenda.
This is very interesting given that on the whole these excellent publications cover just about everything of any import (and many of very little significance), including a wide variety of cultural questions. One can find reviews of the new movie Ghost Rider on several of these sites, for example. On the Hardaway matter, however, there has been an eerie silence on the right, even though the major media have been all over the story for the past week, and have been greatly on the attack against Hardaway for his opinions.
These opinions that are being attacked (once we set aside Hardaway's intemperate use of the word hate), moreover, are in fact the opinions that most people on the right—and indeed most people in the nation—hold: a deep, fundamental discomfort with the idea of homosexual behavior. People feel and advocate differing degrees of toleration toward homosexuality, of course, but there's clearly a basic feeling among regular people that there is indeed something wrong with homosexuality and that it is hence something to be tolerated, not put on an equal footing with heterosexuality.
That's simply the reality of people's attitudes, and this feeling has been common throughout human history.
None of that should be controversial or surprise anyone. The fact that the contemprary American elites strongly support a contrary opinion does not change the reality. It only exemplifies the vast divide between the elite and hoi polloi today.
Certainly this is a subject that most political-intellectual publications should find perfectly fascinating. Typically these publications are ever-ready to report on and analyze any big differences between elite and mass opinions and attitudes. Yet in this case, interest seems surprisingly weak.
It is possible that I have missed some brief discussions of this matter in major publications on the right, but the paucity of treatment of the story among conservatives is very clear from a check of their websites, including use of their search engines to make sure that I haven't missed anything major.
The only conclusion that one can draw from this eerie silence on the right regarding the deliberate destruction of Tim Hardaway is that most publications are simply afraid to touch it.
Given what has happened to Hardaway, I can't blame them. The silence speaks eloquently of the power being arrayed against the public expression of a very normal human attitude.
February 19, 2007
Destruction of Hardaway Continues, Freedom of Speech Confirmed Dead
Former NBA player Tim Hardaway has apologized once again for his remarks last week in which he expressed disapproval of homosexuality and a dislike for homosexuals. AP reports:
“I don’t hate gay people,” Hardaway said. “I’m a goodhearted person. I interact with people all the time. … I respect people. For me to say ‘hate’ was a bad word, and I didn’t mean to use it.” . . .
On Sunday, he acknowledged “that was very bad.”
His remarks quickly drew criticism from both the NBA and several gay and lesbian groups, and Hardaway said the firestorm surprised him.
“It was like, you know, I had killed somebody. … I never knew that this was going to escalate that high,” Hardaway said.
Hardaway was banished from some NBA-sanctioned appearances he was scheduled to make in Las Vegas as part of the all-star weekend.
He also lost at least one of his endorsement deals, and he ordered his name dropped from advertising at a car wash he owns in Miami, saying he made that decision to ensure the safety of his employees.
In response to Hardaway's comments, a consensus has arisen that he must be destroyed not only socially but economically as well.
This use of raw power to destroy an individual for his opinions is truly repugnant.
It's not a political freedom of speech issue, because the government isn't involved.
But it is indeed a freedom of speech issue for our society, because if an individual can be destroyed simply because he holds an opinion that is highly common in the society but unpopular among the elites, we really don't have freedom of speech in this country.
That seems to be the moral of this story. Toe the line, or be ruined.
And this used to be a free country.
February 16, 2007
Is "Homophobia" Natural?
Yesterday we noted that former NBA star Tim Hardaway could argue that his aversion to homosexuality is genetically based and that therefore people could not criticize him for it. Certainly the firestorm of negative reactions—which we can correctly call hatred—toward Hardaway proves that opposition to homosexuality is entirely unacceptable among the nation's power elites.
Yet this does not seem to be true of the population in general. Hardaway could buttress a case for a genetic basis of opposition to homosexuality with the following interesting fact noted (disapprovingly) in Rick Telander's Chicago Sun-Times column today. Radio host Dan LeBatard, who popped the question that started all the controversy, told of his audience's reaction to Hardaway's comment:
Even more stunning to Le Batard was his ensuing Thursday radio show.
''It blew my mind,'' he said, ''all the people who called in and agreed with Hardaway.''
So what we see here is a strong reaction among common people supporting Hardaway, while those whose jobs depend on approval of homosexuality are coming out strong against him.
Which seems more natural to you?
February 15, 2007
Freedom of Speech for Some and Not for Others—the Hardaway Controversy
Retired NBA great Tim Hardaway was asked about homosexual former player John Amaechi yesterday on a radio program. Host Dan Le Batard inquired how Hardaway would react if he knew that he had a homosexual teammate. Hardaway's response has raised a storm of negative reactions.
Here is a direct transcription of the excerpt broadcast on ESPN:
That's all transcribed exactly from the ESPN clip. Regarding prevailing attitudes in the NBA, the following exchange occurred, according to multiple print sources:Le Batard: How do you deal with a gay teammate?
Hardaway: [pause] "Whoa! Uh, first of all, I wouldn't want him on my team. And, uh, second of all, if he was on my team, uh, I would, you know, really distance myself from him because, um, uh, uh, I don't think that's right, and you know, I, I, I don't think that, you know, he should be in the locker room while we are in the locker room, and it's just a whole lot of other things, so I, I wouldn't, I wouldn't even be a part of that; but you know, there's stuff like that going on and there's a lot, uh, of other people, I hear, like that, people in the closet and don't want to come out of the closet, but you know, I just leave that alone."
Le Batard: You know that what you're saying there, though, Timmy, is flatly homophobic. Right? It's just flat, it's just bigotry.
Hardaway: Well, you know, I, you know, I hate gay people. So, uh, uh, you know, I let it be known. I don't like gay people; I don't like to be around gay people. I don't, you know, uh, I yeah, I'm, I'm homophobic. I don't like it; it shouldn't be in the world today or in the United States for it, so yeah, I don't like it.
Hardaway: The majority of the players would ask for him to be traded or they would want to get traded.
Le Betard: But you'd be trading him to a team where he probably wouldn't be wanted there either, I would imagine.
Hardaway: Right, that is true. Just buy him out his contract and let him go (laughs). You know, something has to give. If you got 12 other ballplayers in your locker room that's upset and concentrate and always worried about him in the locker room or on the court or whatever, you know, it's gonna be hard for your teammates to win and accept him as a teammate.
Clearly Hardaway was sandbagged by the questions, as indicated by the number of "uhs" in his response (which I have retained in my transcription in order to convey this discomfort, not to suggest that Hardaway is inarticulate, which he is most certainly not; he has, on the contrary, always come off in interviews as quite intelligent).
Hardaway was obviously not expecting to be asked about homosexuality in a radio conversation about basketball—ordinarily a reasonable expectation, but one that no longer applies now that former NBA player John Amaechi has publicly declared his homosexuality in an attempt to sell more copies of his autobiography which went on sale yesterday.
Confronted later in a telephone interview with a Fox affiliate in Miami, Hardaway retracted his use of the word hate:
Yes, I regret it. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have said I hate gay people or anything like that," he said. "That was my mistake.
Some observations:
One, the use of the word hate was wrong and intemperate on Hardaway's part. He was right to apologize for that. (Of course, there are degrees of hatred, and not all of them are toxic, but that is a discussion for another time. Hardaway's use of that word was definitely inflammatory and poorly conceived.)
Two, note the condescending and openly hostile attitude of the radio host. He calls Hardaway "Timmy" at this point, whereas Hardaway has always been called Tim. Clearly, the host is suggesting, I think inadvertently and therefore quite tellingly, that Hardaway is an inferior person, something of a child whom the host has the authority to remonstrate for naughty behavior. This is also evident in Le Batard's willingness to characterize Hardaway's statement as "homophobic," like some modern Puritan denouncing the former player as a witch. Le Batard then says that Hardaway's statement is bigoted, again taking on the role of a superior upbraiding his inferior.
This openly superior and condescending attitude is very interested indeed as directed toward a man of African descent. That's not usually acceptable these days, but seems to have gone unnoticed in this instance.
Clearly Le Batard was trying to distance himself from the unexpected anti-homosexuality comments of a revered former NBA player, to save his own reputation in addition to stating his own position. The host's invocation of cant terms such as "homophobic" and "bigoted" shows that he knows what is and is not socially acceptable to say, and that this is all about power, not logic. More on that later in this post.
Three, Hardaway's statement that he doesn't want anything to do with homosexuals may or may not be a reasonable preference, but it's certainly something people should be allowed to talk about in public. If we're truly going to have a free society, we're going to have to hear things we disagree with once in a while. And we're going to have to answer them with reasoned arguments, not attempts to suppress the discussion.
Four, if people are going to be logically consistent (an unlikely premise, to be sure), Hardaway could stop all the controversy in a moment by simply asserting that he is genetically predisposed toward disapproving of homosexual behavior. Hence, he could argue, he cannot be held responsible for, or even criticized for, this genetically programmed behavior.
The fact that no one has identified such a gene is immaterial; nobody has looked for one yet. Surely one must exist, Hardaway could argue, given that so many people so strongly disapprove of homosexual behavior and that such attitudes have been so prevalent and persistent throughout human history. It is actually a highly plausible argument, he could say, given the evolutionary imperative for heterosexual behavior in creating children. Certainly the idea of an anti-homosexuality gene is every bit as plausible as the notion that there is a gene predisposing people toward homosexual behavior, he could argue. In fact, he could point out, it makes rather more sense in evolutionary terms.
And if it is wrong for society to seek to thwart or even disapprove of homosexual behavior because it is genetically programmed, he could observe, it must also then be wrong for society to attempt to thwart or even disapprove of people's dislike for homosexual behavior, because that, too, is genetically programmed.
Hardaway could argue that the two positions—approval or disapproval of homosexual behavior—are clearly on equal footing, as far as both genetics and political-social freedom are concerned.
The real difference between the two positions is that one is politically powerful at this point and the other is not.
January 18, 2007
A Fascinating New Sport . . .
Another item in our Everything Happens in the Omniculture series: professional pillow fights. Reuters reports:
Welcome to the Pillow Fight League, which has been drawing growing crowds in Toronto since it formed early last year, and is now set to export its campy fun to New York City.
The league is the brainchild of 38-year-old Stacey Case, a T-shirt printer and musician who came up with the idea that people would pay to see young women in costumes beat the tar out of each other with pillows -- and that women would volunteer to whap each other in front of a crowd. . . .
However, they're quick to point out it's not really just about young women in revealing costumes tussling in front of a largely male audience. Well, maybe it is a bit.
Rather like professional wrestling but with scantily clad women as the fighters, the bouts are presented as if they were real contests, and the performers adopt amusing stage personae:
But it's the fighters that make the show, and they come in all shapes and sizes, with names like Sarah Bellum, the smart one, and Boozy Suzie, who enters the ring with a beer that referee Patterson confiscates with a stern wave of his finger.
Lynn Somnia staggers to the ring in a hospital gown with electrodes dangling, apparently released from her sleep-deprivation chamber.
Top contenders include Betty Clock'er -- by day a financial editor and by night a cushion-swinging housewife who brings a plate of cookies to ringside -- and Polly Esther, billed as the waitress from hell ("And somebody's gonna get served!," The Mouth bellows as she struts toward the ring).
While the personas are all good fun, the action in the ring is real, and as Case is quick to point out, unscripted.
The rules are simple: women only, no lewd behavior, and moves such as leg drops or submission holds are allowed as long as a pillow is used. After that, it's up to the combatants. . . .
This past weekend, Polly didn't disappoint, torquing her long arms to deliver punishing pillow blows to Betty Clock'er in a fight to decide who will travel to New York this week to face PFL title holder Champain, an event Case is hoping will give an adrenaline shot to the league's profile.
Of course, the real money, and the promoters' real goal, is in TV:
The bigger picture involves a TV deal. Case says he has already turned down bids that didn't offer the mix of attention to the action and characters that he says makes the league more of a draw to the arts community than the mud-wrestling crowd.
It won't be long, I'm sure.
January 16, 2007
Black Coaches and Equal Opportunity
As if the pressure on National Football League coaches weren't enough, especially during the playoffs, Chicago Bears coach Lovie Smith and Indianapolis Colts coach Tony Dungy are forced to labor under the additional condition that everything they do will be characterized as having been accomplished—or failed, as the case may be—by a black American.
This Sunday, the two coaches will be leading teams in the NFL conference championship games, with the possibility that both will coach in the Super Bowl this year. And of course reporters have characterized this as a significant event, which of course it is, insofar as football is significant.
But there is a thorn in the acknowledgment of the men's accomplishment. Smith noted in a TV interview that he is forced to bear an additional responsibility because he is black.
It's unfortunate that a black American cannot just be a coach, or an entrepreneur, or a housewife but must be seen as a black coach, entrepreneur, or housewife. Americans tend to see each black or woman as a representative of a group rather than an individual.
As Smith put it yesterday,
I hope for a day when it is unnoticed, but that day isn’t here. This is the first time. You have to acknowledge that. We do. I do. I realize the responsibility that comes with that.
But as much as anything, I realize my responsibility of just being the head coach of the Chicago Bears, and it’s been a long time since we’ve been in this position. I’m just excited for our football team to be able to take another step.
Smith and Dungy have both handled these expectations admirably over the years, but they shouldn't have to. New Orleans Saints coach Sean Payton and New England Patriots coach Bill Bellichik are coaches, not white coaches, and that's the way it should be for Smith and Dungy. They are people, not symbols.
We should hope that the day arrives soon when black Americans don't have to bear an additional responsibility to other blacks or to society as a whole (having to exemplify our national ideal of equal opportunity) because of an accident of skin color, but instead are judged solely by their own accomplishments. To add to people's burdens by making them symbols only makes their lives that much more difficult.
Most important of all, judging people as individuals gives each person the greatest incentive to use their time and talents—and that is the surest way to open the road to success for everyone.
December 27, 2006
Bobby Knight and the Power of the Press
Tomorrow night Texas Tech basketball coach Bobby Knight goes out to break Dean Smith's record for lifetime victories by an NCAA men's basketball coach. Knight has been vilified for years by the press, and of course some of his behavior has certainly earned rebuke. However, as Michael Ledeen points out in National Review Online, the press tends to hold Knight to a higher standard than it sets for most coaches. For example, Ledeen notes,
Yes, he’s got a temper. I have never known a winning coach in any spot who did not have a terrible temper. A few years ago I went to the Final Four in Indianapolis and watched Wisconsin lose to Florida. The Wisconsin coach was named Bennett, and everybody loved him. At a certain point one of his players committed a stupid foul and he called timeout, walked onto the court, and let fly at this poor kid with a torrent of abuse that would have made Knight blush (which is saying something). We were sitting two rows down from the Arctic Circle, and we heard every epithet. But there was no mention of it in the press coverage, because the hunting pack had decided the guy was lovable.
That is a thoroughly correct observation, and I'll add the "why" to it. The real reason the press go after Knight so aggressively is not his infamous actions such as chucking a player under the chin during a game or throwing a chair, unpleasant as those incidents may look on television.
The press will forgive even things such as that—consider the kind of rancid behavior we've seen on football and baseball fields that has been entirely forgotten by the press.
But what the media won't forgive or forget is being exposed as ignorant. And that that is what Knight consistently does in his postgame press conferences and other public forums. Knight treats the press just as he does his players: when they do something stupid, he tells them so, in no uncertain terms.
His press conferences are often hilarious, as he takes ignorant writers to task for asking absurdly stupid questions.
Knight is the one sports figure who does this consistently, and he has paid the price in public scorn. Yet he doesn't appear to mind at all. Here is a man who does what he thinks is right and doesn't give a crud who thinks otherwise. That's a very masculine way to act, and Knight makes no apologies for it. That's another reason many in the press fear and dislike him: he's not the type to worry about other people's opinions and back down under fire. Instead, he fights back.
That's what men do, and it's something our modern mores find unacceptable. That's a pity. We need more examples of fortitude like Bob Knight.
Congratulations to Coach Knight on tying the record for victories. I wish him continued success.
December 23, 2006
Sowell on NC False Prosecution Scandal
As you will recall, I've been writing about the Duke false prosecution scandal since the beginning, on the Reform Club and then on this site since its inception. (See articles here and here, for example.) Over time, this writer's analysis has been confirmed repeatedly by additional revelations from North Carolina, and other writers have created a chorus of boos for NC prosecutor Thomas Nifong.
I initially called for Nifong's impeachment, the resignation of Duke president Thomas Brodhead (who jumped on the scandal as a way of showing support for the town's people over the students at his own university), and the prosecution of the unnamed accuser (who remains unnamed—her reputation, such as it may have been beforehand, continuing unscathed by this incident, unlike those of the accused Duke lacrosse players, their teammates, and especially coach Mike Pressler, who was forced to resign despite having notihing whatever to do with the incident that never actually happened)
Now the superb economist and opinion writer Thomas Sowell has called for Nifong's removal from office and disbarrment. Sowell points out that an impulse behind this matter is a desire for retribution for past injustices against blacks. But as Sowell points out, the Duke lacrosse players had nothing to do with what happened a century ago, and injustices today are wrong in themselves and won't change the past. A culture that thinks intended social consequences (such as a greater sense of pride for some particular group of people) are more important than justice is a vile thing indeed.
What was wrong then is wrong now, and any respect for justice requires that these young men be freed from the specter of prosecution and Nifong impeached, convicted, and disbarred.
In addition, I again urge that the Duke University leadership fire Brodhead for cause, and for the prosecutor who replaces Nifong to indict the Duke lacrosse accuser under the appropriate charges for her integral part in this stupendously ugly incident.
December 18, 2006
A Good Quote on Masculinity
The estimable Sam Smith of the Chicago Tribune quotes former NBA Utah Jazz coach Frank Layden on current Jazz coach Jerry Sloan, who just achieved his 1,000th victory as a coach in the NBA, regarding Sloan's legendary toughness:
Sloan replaced Frank Layden in 1988, and this was Layden on Sloan: "Nobody fights with Jerry because you know the price would be too high. You might come out the winner, at his age, you might even lick him, but you'd lose an eye, an arm … everything would be gone.
"I know you're going to think I'm kidding when I say this, but I saw Jerry Sloan fight at the Alamo, I saw him at Harpers Ferry, I saw him at Pearl Harbor. He's loyal. He's a hard worker. He's a man.
There aren't many men you can say that about these days.
And that is not a good thing.
December 11, 2006
Animal Rights Activists Lose One
The National Basketball Association has announced that the league will stop using the microfiber composite basketballs it has been employing this season, and will return to use of leather basketballs as in previous years.
Players had complained that the new basketballs became very slippery during games and the microfiber coating would cut the players' fingers after repeated use. In response to the hailstorm of complaints from players, NBA Commissioner David Stern announced that the league will go back to the old basketballs beginning January 1 of next year.
The decision is a blow to animal rights activists, who it is rumored convinced the league to use artificial basketballs instead of the traditional leather ones. As All Headline News reports:
The few positive comments about the non-leather NBA basketball have come from the animal rights group PETA.
PETA, or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, touted the new ball as a victory for animal lovers and cows the world over.
"Although basketball may be a game to us," says PETA's website, "it's no fun for cows whose skins are used to make basketballs." The website also said, "It's easy to moo-ve away from leather."
And easy to move back., too
December 05, 2006
What's Good About Ultimate Fighting
USA Today has published today an excellent article analyzing the appeal of ultimate fighting. Here are some excerpts:
"Boxing is boring. Brawls are not," says Stephanie Cassidy, 24, a sixth-grade teacher from Fairfield whose husband got the $400-a-pop tickets for her birthday.
Which is pretty much all you need to know about how this salute to Rome's Colosseum has evolved from cultural pariah to mainstream hit. . . .
Signs of success include the fact that UFC's Spike TV reality show, The Ultimate Fighter, often outdraws NBA and baseball games among the coveted 18- to 34-year-old male demographic. Its pay-per-view bouts are estimated to pull in eight figures, and ufc.com has doubled its traffic, to 2 million unique visitors a month, in the past year. . . .
Far from being a lone oddity, UFC has spawned five other MMA leagues (mixed martial arts, which combines a variety of striking and grappling techniques), one of which, Pro Elite, just signed a deal with Showtime. . . .
To judge from all the couples in attendance, you'd think this was a concert or a movie megaplex.
Beyond the surprising abundance of women, there's also a range of races (only African-Americans seem in short supply), professions (from shelf stockers to stock brokers) and ages (from the occasional gray hair to the blond tresses of a 5-year-old). . . .
• Far from being barroom brawlers, UFC toughs often have college degrees, and some boast winning careers as boxers, jujitsu fighters, Muay Thai practitioners and collegiate wrestlers.
• Boxers have died in the ring, but so far not one UFC fighter.
• Football and baseball may be American pastimes, but for a high-tech generation weaned on immediacy, such sporadic action doesn't compare with UFC's short and definitive flurries of violence. . . .
For a populace jittery about the threat of terrorism at home and a costly war abroad, that tough-by-association cocktail can be hard to pass up. "Much of life feels out of control right now, so to see these gladiators fight your fight for you — it's somehow comforting," says Mike Voight, a lecturer on the sociology of sport at the University of Southern California. "It used to be boxing that gave us that escape." . . .
That many UFC fighters look and sound like everyday people — compared with figures like Mike Tyson and Hulk Hogan — is a powerful part of the sport's popularity.
Matt Hughes was a four-time All-American wrestler at two Midwestern colleges who likes to talk about how his bouts "are chess matches that require immense dedication and discipline." More to the point, far from being Goliath, Hughes is a compact 5-foot-9. . . .
"I love how many of these guys are my size. It makes it something I can relate to," says [actor Robert] Patrick, molten co-star of Terminator 2: Judgment Day and CBS' The Unit.
As the lights dim and the arena goes on the boil (metal music thrashing, crowds screaming, ring girls wiggling), Patrick's eyes widen. "I suppose all this is some kind of reflection on our society," he says. "But there's also just a great nobility to being a great warrior."
That's UFC as sociological mirror, a link to our roots as creatures bent on survival. But there's another UFC, the one that's just a heck of a way to rage with old friends. . . .
What UFC is can be wrestled into this: an upscale street duel elegantly marketed to the masses. And the masses are loving it.
I suspect that the morality and normality that the USA Today writer identifies at the center of ultimate fighting are probably central to its appeal and a big reason people are increasingly gravitating to it. In a time of war and fear, it's comforting for people to look to champions who are very much like them but so greatly skilled that they can defeat seemingly invincible enemies. Hence the appeal of ultimate fighting may well have a highly positive aspect.
I'll take a look at this interesting phenomenon and report on it in future.