I got creamed in Fantasy Football today...in honor, let's discuss some football news first.
All anyone wants to talk about is Bill Belichick and the signal stealing incident. Opinions are flying, pundits are punditing, and the Patriots are refusing to add more grist to the rumor mill. Rather than spewing my own opinion of the situation, I'd like to point out the deeper issue: cheating.
I've heard plenty of "well, everyone does it. This was just a more brazen form". This is probably true. Why do you think coaches cover their mouths when calling plays (besides to channel their voice into the microphone)? Why do poker players have poker faces? Why do catchers try to conceal pitch calls and pitchers conceal how they're fingering the ball? Answer: to keep the other team from gaining an advantage. But let's not kid ourselves...stealing signals using inside information, observation, or filming them is still cheating. It's like downloading music. No matter how you justify it, it's still stealing. So if the problem is cheating, measures need to be taken. ANY attempt to figure out another team's signals should be considered cheating and punishable. It's a very simple premise: if caught cheating in any way, it will be met with immediate and pre-defined punishment. Of course, there should be well-defined avenues for handling accusations, minimum standards for evidence, and all the normal safe-guards to prevent abuse of the system. But there should never be equivocation on whether some forms of cheating are acceptable. It shouldn't be acceptable except in "brazen" circumstances. Will it still happen? Yes. Because pressure to win and to sell tickets and commercials is paramount in sports. And because some people just can't win without an advantage. Just stop kidding yourselves...cheating is cheating whether everyone does it or not. Unless we all agree that certain forms of signal stealing are acceptable and therefore not cheating, then they are all unsportsmanlike.
Now we get to this: outlawing baggy pants. Does the stupidity of this even need explanation? Apparently. I'm not going to provide it. If this is high on your list of priorities, ahead of environmental destruction, poverty, hunger, war, racism, misogyny, stupidity (do I need to go on?) then I don't want to meet you. This is the kind of shit that starts people down paths that only end in intolerance and bitterness. Where does it end? Are we going to outlaw bikinis because they show too much skin? What about thin white cotton shirts that might show chest muscles or, heaven forbid, breasts? How about pants that are loose, but only show the elastic band of your boxers? I want to know...how does another person's choice of dress personally harm your life, liberties, or property? If you think it does, then hurry up and die. Because it doesn't. It might upset your sensibilities and it might clash with the way you think other people should behave, but it in no way affects your life. Just don't look. It's like t.v. - it you don't like what's on, don't watch. This is an example of the absolute worst in people and government. Elected officials wasted valuable time debating this. Instead of working on legislation to improve public infrastructure or schools, reduce poverty and unemployment, or provide community events and facilities they took time to argue about clothes and what proper clothes should be. To any official that took part in this debate: I hope you're kicked out of office so hard your mother tastes my shoe. You are what is wrong with government. You only perpetuate stupidity and world class uselessness. You deserve prison far more than kids peddling pot.
And to Mr. R.E. Williams of the Atlanta police department. FUCK YOU! I hope you die in a fire. That's the most ignorant thing I've seen in print today. While generalizations are good when they help organize information, your generalization was not based on any type of objective data but instead on your perception of the people you deal with. You deal with criminals. Therefore, your ideas of baggy pants are pretty skewed. You represent the reason people detest police everywhere. If you were a politician, a statement like that would result in a resignation. The same should happen to you. Well...that or the fire.
3 comments:
That's right...I'm commenting on my own blog post. Wanna fight about it?
Just to kick start the debate, think about this. This legislation primarily affects young black men. I know there are plenty of other people of other cultures and skin tones that do the same thing. I'm also aware that not all black people wear baggy clothes. But look at the population of the areas that want to implement these measures. Look at the people that will be affected the most.
I'm not saying it's all racially based. And since I don't know the officials making the decision, I don't know if they are multi-racial. For all I know, they may all be black. What I am pointing out that this is another in a long line of legislation that is likely to disproportionately affect blacks, and particularly young black men.
That's like making a law that says listening to hip-hop is now a crime, because people who commit crimes are more likely to listen to it. Or that it's illegal to have tattoos because there are more tattoos in the criminal population, percentage wise, than there is the general population.
In fact, this is like making a law that says it's illegal to be young, because a lot of young people do bad things.
You know who also do a lot of bad things? Old white men. But you know who never gets discriminated against? Old white men. I wonder why this is...
The only time old white men complain about anything is when their discriminatory practices affect them (ie. getting searched at the airport, as if the safety of hundreds of people in the air and thousands on the ground aren't worth taking EVERYONE seriously as a possible threat).
Anyway, what I really wanted to say is... OH SHIT! BRANDON IS SPITTIN' WHITE HOT FIRE!!!
I got thrashed in fantasy football too...
I read a more complete version of the article on Yahoo! last week. In addition to the baggy pants, the ordinance also was going to forbid any display of undergarments.
This includes thongs, panties, bra straps, and boxers. No word on whether going commando would be punished.
It's as if Atlanta is back in high school (where, we did in fact have rules barring the display of underwear and bra straps) and attempting to legislate morality through a dress code. Aside from the potential benefit of braless women, this has no legitimate basis.
Post a Comment