Reality Check in Aisle 5, Please
Dec. 3rd, 2004 05:42 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
akujunkan一級 in T-3 days. Eek!
In other news, I've heard a lot about the Detroit Pistons/Indiana Pacers basketball brawl recently. I'm going to preface this post by saying I could give less of a shit about professional sports. Professional athletes are for the most part pampered and overpaid for the work they do. We hear lots of wailing and teeth gnashing from individuals of all social and political stripes to the tune of "what is happening to our nation's schools?" and "why are our children so dumb/uninterested in learning?" etc. etc. ad nauseum.
Well, what if we paid six or seven-figure salaries not to athletes, but to people who are smart, or better yet, to people who work to make other people smart (you know, teachers)? I get sick of listening to all of this heart-wrenching soul-searching when it's so clearly superficial.
I haven't seen any footage of this famous brawl, but I'm pretty ticked by some of the apologists for Ron Artest, the player who's received the most severe punishment from the NBA: namely, a 73 game extension. Writes one J. Douglas Allen-Taylor:
I'm pretty disgusted by this journalist's willingness (also prevalent within society on the whole; how I wish I had my Gender Studies texts on this subject at hand) to excuse the reprehensible actions of an athlete simply because he is an athlete.
Let's look at the language here: He appears to be taking aim at a particular fan, passing others unmolested as they jump out of his way. When he reaches the fan – who, we can assume, Artest believes threw the cup – Artest does not hit him, or even tackle him, two actions we might expect the player to take immediately after being struck in the face with the cup and liquid, when he would have been at his angriest, and when he would have been at his most out of control – if he were out of control. Instead, Artest grabs the fan by the shoulder, and drags him down into the seats.
There's a whole lot of apologising for Artest's inexcusable behavior going on in this paragraph. I don't care that Artest is an athlete. I don't care that his actions occurred 'when he would have been at his most out of control.' I don't give a fucking damn that people fought back. Consider - if you were sitting in the stands and a six-foot-plus, muscular, raving man came charging at you out of the blue, wouldn't you consider defending yourself?
But it's okay because Artest is and athlete and of course he gets worked up. Spare me.
The journalist continues: However, moody and intense Ron Artest was an easy target. This week Sports Illustrated's Web site posted a story by regular contributor Lang Whitaker titled "Ticking Time Bomb: Artest's Earlier Off-Court Antics Foreshadowed His Epic Meltdown." The problem is, in six items listed to show Artest's tendencies, Whitaker only cites one involving violence, and that one not against an individual, but an inanimate object: "Two years ago, he flipped out and broke a television camera at Madison Square Garden." As an NBA Defensive Player of the Year who must gear himself up to guard some of the world's most talented athletes – night after night – that's hardly remarkable.
Of course, violent outbursts are fine if you're an athlete who "must gear [yourself] up to guard some of the world's most talented atheletes - night after night." Again, fucking gag me. How much of an idiot do you take me for, Allen-Taylor?
And it's all because this pwoor bwaby is an athlete, with handlers to take care of his tedious everyday needs for him, trainers, and an astronomically large salary paid for the 'services' he renders society. Yeah, life is such a fucking pressure for people like him.
Imagine, however, if it Artest had been not an athlete, but an educator. Imagine the scene Allen-Taylor describes occurring not in a stadium, but in a university lecture hall:
and
Now replace 'Ivy League professor' with 'high school biology teacher' and see how much less inclined you'd feel to cut Mr Artest any slack.
Kinda puts a different spin on things, doesn't it? One wonder's if Allen-Taylor's heart would bleed for our hypothetical educator Artests in the same way it bleeds for real life athelte Artest. I doubt it would. In fact, I thing Allen-Taylor would be at the head of the pack calling for Atrest's head and decrying the sorry state of our nation's educational system where people 'like this' are hired to teach. I think Allen-Taylor has never paused to consider that there's something fundamentally wrong about the way an athlete's pampered, overpaid pro status blinds him to that athlete's inexcusable behavior, while society never questions that perhaps the privileges afforded to athletes, who perform no necessary services, should perhaps be afforded to the the undervalued, underpaid intellectuals and educators whose efforts actually help to make the world a better place.
Priority check, people.
That will be all.
In other news, I've heard a lot about the Detroit Pistons/Indiana Pacers basketball brawl recently. I'm going to preface this post by saying I could give less of a shit about professional sports. Professional athletes are for the most part pampered and overpaid for the work they do. We hear lots of wailing and teeth gnashing from individuals of all social and political stripes to the tune of "what is happening to our nation's schools?" and "why are our children so dumb/uninterested in learning?" etc. etc. ad nauseum.
Well, what if we paid six or seven-figure salaries not to athletes, but to people who are smart, or better yet, to people who work to make other people smart (you know, teachers)? I get sick of listening to all of this heart-wrenching soul-searching when it's so clearly superficial.
I haven't seen any footage of this famous brawl, but I'm pretty ticked by some of the apologists for Ron Artest, the player who's received the most severe punishment from the NBA: namely, a 73 game extension. Writes one J. Douglas Allen-Taylor:
In the full court press to place blame for the Pacers-Pistons brawl, Ron Artest is sacrificed. But who, really, is at fault?(empashis mine)
After being shoved on the floor by the Piston's Ben Wallace, and while other players were milling around, shoving and pointing and arguing, Artest retreated to the scorer's table and laid down on his back, away from the scuffling. It is true that a cup of liquid, striking him full in the face, caused him to "jump up and charge into the stands." It is not true that he was "throwing punches as he climbed over seats." In fact, Artest throws no punches at all in that initial charge. He appears to be taking aim at a particular fan, passing others unmolested as they jump out of his way. When he reaches the fan – who, we can assume, Artest believes threw the cup – Artest does not hit him, or even tackle him, two actions we might expect the player to take immediately after being struck in the face with the cup and liquid, when he would have been at his angriest, and when he would have been at his most out of control – if he were out of control. Instead, Artest grabs the fan by the shoulder, and drags him down into the seats.
Was Ron Artest wrong for taking that action? I don't think so, but that's a judgment call upon which we can reasonably disagree. The point is, he never threw a punch at the fan he was initially the most angry with. Don't take my word. Watch the fight video – the whole video – yourself.
I'm pretty disgusted by this journalist's willingness (also prevalent within society on the whole; how I wish I had my Gender Studies texts on this subject at hand) to excuse the reprehensible actions of an athlete simply because he is an athlete.
Let's look at the language here: He appears to be taking aim at a particular fan, passing others unmolested as they jump out of his way. When he reaches the fan – who, we can assume, Artest believes threw the cup – Artest does not hit him, or even tackle him, two actions we might expect the player to take immediately after being struck in the face with the cup and liquid, when he would have been at his angriest, and when he would have been at his most out of control – if he were out of control. Instead, Artest grabs the fan by the shoulder, and drags him down into the seats.
There's a whole lot of apologising for Artest's inexcusable behavior going on in this paragraph. I don't care that Artest is an athlete. I don't care that his actions occurred 'when he would have been at his most out of control.' I don't give a fucking damn that people fought back. Consider - if you were sitting in the stands and a six-foot-plus, muscular, raving man came charging at you out of the blue, wouldn't you consider defending yourself?
But it's okay because Artest is and athlete and of course he gets worked up. Spare me.
The journalist continues: However, moody and intense Ron Artest was an easy target. This week Sports Illustrated's Web site posted a story by regular contributor Lang Whitaker titled "Ticking Time Bomb: Artest's Earlier Off-Court Antics Foreshadowed His Epic Meltdown." The problem is, in six items listed to show Artest's tendencies, Whitaker only cites one involving violence, and that one not against an individual, but an inanimate object: "Two years ago, he flipped out and broke a television camera at Madison Square Garden." As an NBA Defensive Player of the Year who must gear himself up to guard some of the world's most talented athletes – night after night – that's hardly remarkable.
Of course, violent outbursts are fine if you're an athlete who "must gear [yourself] up to guard some of the world's most talented atheletes - night after night." Again, fucking gag me. How much of an idiot do you take me for, Allen-Taylor?
And it's all because this pwoor bwaby is an athlete, with handlers to take care of his tedious everyday needs for him, trainers, and an astronomically large salary paid for the 'services' he renders society. Yeah, life is such a fucking pressure for people like him.
Imagine, however, if it Artest had been not an athlete, but an educator. Imagine the scene Allen-Taylor describes occurring not in a stadium, but in a university lecture hall:
It is true that a cup of liquid, striking him full in the face, caused him to "jump up and charge into the lecture stands." It is not true that he was "throwing punches as he climbed over seats." In fact, Professor Artest throws no punches at all in that initial charge. He appears to be taking aim at a particular student, passing others unmolested as they jump out of his way. When he reaches the student – who, we can assume, Artest believes threw the cup – Artest does not hit him, or even tackle him, two actions we might expect the teacher to take immediately after being struck in the face with the cup and liquid, when he would have been at his angriest, and when he would have been at his most out of control – if he were out of control. Instead, Artest grabs the student by the shoulder, and drags him down into the seats.
and
The problem is, in six items listed to show Artest's tendencies, Whitaker only cites one involving violence, and that one not against an individual, but an inanimate object: "Two years ago, he flipped out and broke a television in his lecture hall." As a tenured Ivy League professor who must gear himself up to teach some of the world's most stressful, overcrowed lectures – night after night – that's hardly remarkable.
Now replace 'Ivy League professor' with 'high school biology teacher' and see how much less inclined you'd feel to cut Mr Artest any slack.
Kinda puts a different spin on things, doesn't it? One wonder's if Allen-Taylor's heart would bleed for our hypothetical educator Artests in the same way it bleeds for real life athelte Artest. I doubt it would. In fact, I thing Allen-Taylor would be at the head of the pack calling for Atrest's head and decrying the sorry state of our nation's educational system where people 'like this' are hired to teach. I think Allen-Taylor has never paused to consider that there's something fundamentally wrong about the way an athlete's pampered, overpaid pro status blinds him to that athlete's inexcusable behavior, while society never questions that perhaps the privileges afforded to athletes, who perform no necessary services, should perhaps be afforded to the the undervalued, underpaid intellectuals and educators whose efforts actually help to make the world a better place.
Priority check, people.
That will be all.
