posted by BH
Okay. So I've made my distaste for figure skating clear. Yet last night, as Phil and I sat in a bar watching skeleton and Snowboard Cross, a promo came on for Ice Dancing. The sound was off, and the promo seemed mostly to consist of American ice dancers Tanith Belbin and Ben Agosto. Agosto looks like a typically shmoe-ish guy ice skater, but Belbin is unbelievable. I didn't need to hear one word in this ad to know that I was going to tune into ice dancing to watch this woman skate. Holy crap is she hot. And I'm afraid hot isn't sufficient enough a word. Maybe some word like, Holygodhowisitpossiblethatsomeonesohotwascreatedandshejustmademybenchpleasedon'ttellmywife, or something like that. I know, it's all terribly sexist, but come on. At this point, the pair is sixth, like I really care. I'm still watching for those five minutes tonight when she's on the ice.
Dude! Get out of the picture!It was a bummer watching the U.S. women's Hockey team go from a 2-0 lead against Sweden, to losing in a shootout. The U.S. team has looked sloppy and it finally caught up with them. Now, the U.S. will skate for bronze against Finland, who they beat in the third period the other day. There's something cool about a U.S./Canada matchup that doesn't quite translate to a U.S./Finland game.
I don't really give a shit about what Bryant Gumbel said the other day. I can see how some are a little bothered though. I never thought about him as a racist (especially after Paul Mooney's "Negrodamus" on Chappelle's Show), but it's clear that he is. To use your personal opinions about a sporting event to attempt to diminish everyone involved, everyone interested in watching, and somehow turn it into a dig against anyone who's ever voted Republican is cheap, childish, chicken shit. At the same time, who cares? We're talking about Bryant Gumbel.
"Try not to laugh when someone says these are the world’s greatest athletes, despite a paucity of blacks that makes the games look like a GOP convention," huffed Gumbel, host of HBO’s Real Sports. "And try to blot out all logic when announcers and sportswriters pretend to care about the luge, the skeleton, the biathlon and all those other events they don’t understand and totally ignore for all but three weeks every four years. Face it: These Olympics are little more than a marketing plan."
See how I kind of look like a giant douche?I don't remember hearing anyone call a guy doing the skeleton one of the world's greatest athletes, but when you say that, by default, these events lack anyone who might be considered the best because few blacks complete, and therefore lack any credibility, you have established yourself as a racist. When you call all members of the Republican Party racists, you are a racist. Believe it or not, some of these announcers and sportswriters, especially those outside the U.S., cover these events more than every four years. If these Olympics are little more than a marketing plan, who ever is in charge is doing a fairly poor job, especially considering that it does contain very few of a very large potential market (blacks), and loses out to American Idol. These are thoughtless comments from a self-abosrbed guy who likes to hear himself talk. Do we not know the deal with this guy yet? He's been saying stupid shit for twenty years.
Posts
14 comments:
I don't think what he said makes him a racist. I think he echoes the thoughts of a lot of black-Americans regarding not caring about the winter games. I was shocked to hear that Shani was the first black ever to win gold. I don't think that's because of racism in any way, but I also don't think Gumbel was a racist for sharing his thoughts on the games. Then again, I'm on a sweet cocktail of Zicam, TheraFlu, NyQuill, Sudafed and Jameson right now, so what the hell do I know.
And "hot" is a severe understatement, my friend. Even my wife said, "I think even I would make out with her." Er, maybe that was the drugs talking as well.
Seriously. When you say that an event does not contain the best athletes simply because a certain ethnic group, that is racism. If a white guy were to say that an event lacked legitmacy because no white people were involved, it would be racist, and the guy would be fired. I don't care if it echoes the thoughts of God, it's racist.
I think it's very similar to people saying that they don't watch the NBA because it's too
"ghetto" or too "thugged out." White journalists can say that the sport "appeals to a particular market" and get away with it. It happens all the time. Plus, I don't think the winter Olympics consist of the best athletes in the world. I would agree with Gumbel on that. A dude doing the luge or curling is not one of the best athletes in the world. I think that is a terribly over-used phrase in the Olympics. Hell, even Jerry Seinfeld talked about it in his stand-up act.
I've probably watched the Olympics as much as anyone who doesn't actually have a family member there this year, and I don't think I've heard anyone say that these are the best athletes in the world. A dude winning curling and luge in the Winter Olympics is probably the best curler and luger in the world, but not athlete. Okay, so you and Gumbel now made points or arguments about something no one really seems to be suggesting anyway. When you, in a blanket fashion, suggest simply that these can't be called the best athletes because of the lack of involvement of one race, I don't see for a second how that can't be considered racist. Imagine there's a competition taking place that has traditionally included southern hemisphere countries. At the end of it, most of the athletes who competed were darker skinned, from say Africa or South America. Imaginie Rush Limbaugh coming on his show and stating that this competition doesn't really matter anyway, since there weren't any whites involved. That there's no way these are the best athletes in the world, simply because there aren't white-skinned people competing.
You mean, like distance road racing?
Weren't you the one who said something to the effect of, "I don't think we should think enough of ourselves to be the ultimate judge on anybody else's character," when I knocked Bode Miller for not shutting his mouth? So, I shouldn't say that Miller is a jerk for his nonsensical rambling, but it's okay for you to call Gumbel a racist for what he said? That, in and of itself, is slamming one's character about as much as one can. So, I take it that you feel that you can be the ultimate judge on one's character?
Dude, you're judging Miller's character based on a very limited number of interviews and information given right before the Olympics. Gumbel based on what he said here, as well as what has been documented over the past, clearly has expressed contempt for whites. This is over a twenty plus year career in open arenas, not sound bites that are pieced together by some journalist looking for inflamatory stuff over a three month period. With Miller, you're interpreting things to fit your idea of a jerk or moron, whereas with Gumbel, I'm seeing things that fit the very definition of racism and prejudice. Seeing real characteristics and calling them as they are is not the same as assigning your personal expectations.
I don't agree with you that, from the link you posted, that Gumbel "clearly has expressed contempt for whites" over his 20-year-career. It's certianly not "clear." Clear as mud, maybe.
He's expressed contempt for Republicans, and I suppose if that is what you mean by "whites," then I could agree with you. Even from this recent rant, I think it was more of a social commentary of how blacks feel about the winter games more so than any contempt for whites. If you feel certian enough to call him a "racist," then you must have taken a class on Gumbelisms in college that you didn't tell me about, because neither his recent remarks nor the link you posted can lead one to unquestionably label him as a racist. For, that is judging one's character to an extreme, as labeling one as a racist should not be taken lightly. The label of "racist" is one that is much more difficult to shake than "jerk."
Labeling someone as a "jerk" on the other hand, doesn't nearly hold the same amount of power. From the 60 minutes piece (which I watched in its entirety), and his interviews on ESPN, the Vail Daily, et. al., Miller has never once displayed the common-sense needed for one who has been "chosen," like it or not, to be the face of the American Ski Team. Discussing racing drunk or hungover from partying the night before (including his first event in these games), is hard to take out of context, whether it's a soundbite or not. I personally know many parents of young skiers in Vail (primarily the doctors and co-workers from Lisa's office) that are aghast at Miller's remarks, particularly at what a bad example it sets for their children. This, in and of itself, constitutes the very definition of "jerk."
I don't recall stating that labeling someone a jerk is more powerful than calling him a racist. I do remember writing that I gathered information from a far more comprehensive source than a lone "60 Minutes" interview. Gumbel wrote what he said, then read it off a teleprompter from his pulpit. You were judging Miller and seemingly the entire U.S. ski team based on an interview you saw for a few minutes a month and a half ago. You then posted in a blog that "Miller, like it or not, is the face of the US Ski Team. The reason seems to be partly due to his enormous yapper, his "controversial ways," and for being a grade-A moron," while following this with a shining appraisal of Shaun White, citing among other things, that he wants to save the money he earns from this Olympics. You used a very small sample size with which to pass judgement on Miller, juxtaposed with a good guy review of White. I thought the whole thing was a bit duplicitous and beneath your intellectual capabilities, hence my objection.
Perhaps an outright label such as racist is too strong, but would you not agree that what Gumbel said about blacks and the Olympics was loaded with racism and prejudice? Would you not agree that calling Republicans racists is loaded with racism and prejudice? Is what he said not reflective of his views?
I must admit, I am incredibly flabergasted that you are choosing to in some way defend people like Bode Miller and Lindsey Jacobellis when their failures are in part due to reasons for your distaste of particular "professional" athletes. It is incredibly contradictory to past arguements you've made against professional football and baseball players alike.
And I have not based my judgement on Miller solely on his 60 minutes interview. That's an absolute falacy that you keep repeating. For the last two years, including his strong World Cup showing last season, Miller has been the "rebel, bad boy" of skiing and he has done nothing but feed that perception with multiple interviews. Do a quick search on Google using the phrases "Bode Miller and doping," for example, and you will see stories dating back to 2004 where Miller, in FULL interviews (not soundbites), does nothing but feed the negative perception of him. Living in a ski resort, I may be privy to more of this information than others as stories about Miller were common over the last two years (search archives for the Vail Daily and Summit County News), which is precisely why it is beneath your intellectual capacity to try to say that my arguement is based on one 60 minutes interview. His discussion of skiing drunk has and will be his most outlandish remarks, and will continue to be a perfect example to use when discussing him in terms such as jerk and moron.
Vis a vis, he has been placed as the face of the ski team. Your inability to accept this fact boggles my mind. That's not a knock on the ENTIRE ski team. But, it does give said ski team a proverbial black eye. You may want to relate it to Barry Bonds and the Giants. There are many, many fans who despise the Giants, simply because of Bonds and what they believe he represents (cheating). Similar to Miller, Bonds is THE face of the Giants, and until he retires, there will be fans who despise the organization simply because he is the face of the team. Jeff Kent had a great Giants career, but he is still and forever will be overshadowed by Bonds. Vizquel won a Gold Glove last year, but the main story continues to be Bonds. This is similar to Ligity winning the combined, yet being overshadowed by the failures of Miller. Why? Because Miller, due to his own actions (performing well last year on the World Cup circuit, then spewing forth comments void of logical thought)is the main story and he has become the face of that team.
Regarding White, you are using the assumption that the lone quote I referrenced for White is the sole source of information that I have on him. Again, I could have used multiple sources, but I don't think a blog is the place to put together a master's thesis on such a subject. Henceforth, if you would like me to put together said thesis, complete with footnotes, obscure referrences and additional imperical data (such as public opinion poles from the New York Times, CNN and my ass) to prove to you that Shaun White, as the face of the US Snowboarding team, has enhanced the reputation and legitimacy of said team, while Miller, as the face of the US Ski Team, has done a disservice to his said team... well, I'm not going to do that, because I have a life.
And I'm not talking about Gumbel any more.
First of all, you're a fucking idiot if you believe that feeling bad for Lindsay Jacobellis contradicts disliking that Reggie Williams dances after a four yard catch or Ray Lewis celebrates after tackling a guy following a six yard run. Continue to be flabbergasted if you must, but my point has been made, legitimately, and I would like to think deserves better than attempted devaluation based on half-hearted reflection.
As far as I can tell, the entirety of what I've said about the "60 Minutes interview is:
"It's interesting that no one outside ski towns knew anything about Miller before his 60 minutes interview."
"I do remember writing that I gathered information from a far more comprehensive source than a lone "60 Minutes" interview."
"You were judging Miller and seemingly the entire U.S. ski team based on an interview you saw for a few minutes a month and a half ago."
It's hard to see that these constitute "an absolute falacy that you keep repeating."
Would the casual fan care about Miller if not for that interview? Would you then have written an entry about it?
The point was clear that you really know nothing about either White or Miller personally. None of us do. You could tell me you've heard or seen 100 interviews in which you think you've found something that gives you a real understanding of their character, yet you simply don't know. A few years ago, ESPN.com did a piece on the best baseball players people had ever seen. Multiple guys wrote things along the lines of "While I don't like Barry Bonds personally, he's a great baseball player." Did they know Bonds personally? Unlikely. Yet based on the interviews they had heard over the course of Bonds' career, decided they knew enough about him to pass judgement. Do you know Bode Miller personally? No. Yet because you have heard interviews and you live in a ski town, you feel qualified to pass judgement? I evaluated what you wrote about White and Miller based on what you actually wrote. Miller is a "grade-A moron" because he parties all night, while White is "from all accounts a good 19 year-old kid" because it's better to buy real estate than say, a yellow and purple Corvette or an elephant that can speak sign language." I don't deny that Miller's probably not a good guy, and I think I written that a couple times. Forgive me for evaluating what you wrote based on what you put in the blog. I'm disappointed that you decided to go the route of the smart-ass when you wrote, "if you would like me to put together said thesis, complete with footnotes, obscure referrences and additional imperical data (such as public opinion poles from the New York Times, CNN and my ass) to prove to you that Shaun White, as the face of the US Snowboarding team, has enhanced the reputation and legitimacy of said team, while Miller, as the face of the US Ski Team, has done a disservice to his said team... well, I'm not going to do that, because I have a life." I know we all go back and forth with our little quips, but this is really insulting and meant to demean, as well as being a disservice to the natural course of the discussion. Half of what I've done over the course of the last three or so posts is clarify my positions because of your belief that I hold contrasting views. It doesn't take obscure references or empirical data, just a good faith willingness to learn something from the other person as well as hone views over the course of the discussion.
I'm disappointed that you didn't answer the previous Gumbel question.
"I do remember writing that I gathered information from a far more comprehensive source than a lone "60 Minutes" interview." is certianly implying that I used a lone 60 minutes interview, is it not? It's insulting.
And of course I know nothing about them personally. Neither you nor I know anything about ANYBODY that we write about, right? If that were a qualifier, then this blog would be non-existent.
We will once again have to agree to disagree. In the same sense that I am not clearly understanding how you can seperate the two (Let's say, for agruemtnts sake: Bode vs. Gumbel & Jacobellis vs. Showboating) you are not willing to accept my arguement as valid.
I guess I can sum up my arguement as following:
Miller vs. Gumbel = both being labelled.
Jacobellis vs. Defensive End = Unnecessary showboating
After re-reading these, I think that we are debating two seperate things. You've made your points, as I believe I have made my points, however we are not debating the same thing.
If you get a moment, grab a USA Today. Read Jon Saraceno's column, "Keeping Score." Here's one of his paragraphs that sums up many of my feelings towards Miller and why I am passionate about my distaste for what he represents:
"Bode exudes an offensive, lofty detachment from these Games that insults other athletes and disrespects the founding spirit of the Olympics."
"Bode exudes an offensive, lofty detachment from these Games that insults other athletes and disrespects the founding spirit of the Olympics."
From dictionary.com:
jerk (n) A foolish, rude, or contemptible person.
I find it interesting that he (and a few others) has his own trailer in the Olympic Village.
Honestly, I try not to pass judgement on any athlete off the field, because as I have demonstrated, I know nothing about them. I have no problem saying somone's actions on the field are moronic, stupid, or boofy worthy though.
Post a Comment