skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Is the grammatical error purposefully ironic, or what?
I am pretty excited about this to be honest, because if there is anything I like, it is local news provided by a non-local source. Channels 4, 5, and 7 have had it too good for too long, and changes like this are more than welcome.
So good riddance, Boston.com. I prefer to consume my local sports with a fresh side of unemployment and a dab of informational hegemony.
Muhahahahaha!!!
You ever caught for Carlos Zambrano... ON WEED???Last November, voters in Massachusetts overwhelmingly decided to decriminalize marijuana. If less than one ounce of marijuana is found in your possession, then the maximum penalty is a $100 fine, with no criminal record of the incident. The good people of Massachusetts basically stated, "If you smoke weed, then who gives a shit? We got better things to worry about." And with good reason, because honestly, if you think smoking marijuana is a crime, then move to Malaysia and get a job with the government, you will fit right in... You jackass.
Better still, go work for the WWL.
Geovany Soto tested positive for Marijuana during the World Baseball Classic this passed Spring and unlike the good people of Massachusetts, ESPN decided they should make a big deal out of it. However, ESPN does not treat these stories with the same gravity as they would, say a PED story. When Manny Ramirez tested positive for whatever the hell he tested positive the mood down in Bristol most closely resembled a funeral. At times it felt as if Manny was some kind of victim. At best, he was a cautionary tale, rather than an outright cheater who should exposed and ridiculed for his actions. Most likely, however, ESPN was simply mourning the loss of a default story line; Manny went 0 for 4 in the game, but look! He has dreadlocks! Oh, Manny.
Contrast the tone of the Sotojuana story with that of the Manny saga. ESPN was derisive with Soto, even to the point of being hypocritical. On the one side, ESPN wants to embarrass Soto, painting him as some kind of fool that deserves to be mocked because, well, only clowns smoke weed, right? But then out of the other side of their mouth, they make light out of the situation.
Banter
Stu Scott: Stone Cold Soto's apparently more concerned with appeasing his craving for munchies, then boosting his OPS.
/Chuckles
Neil Everett: Yeah, his numbers might not be high as last year, but he most certainly is...
/Guffaws.
Ahem, but seriously kids, smoking weed is wrong, and Mr. Soto has really set a bad example.
Stu Scott: Wrong like Cheech n' Chong... Oops!
/Explosions of laughter.
Now of course ESPN needs to report this information to it's consumers. But it's the manner in which it is reported that is an issue. Either it just report it, condemn it, or defend the guy. After you do that, leave it the fuck alone. But ESPN can't help itself. The next day after the report surfaced, writers over at the WWL just couldn't resist referring to Soto in a dismissive tone. From Friday, June 26th:
[The Cubs win] and they can thank Geovany Soto, of all people, for that.
And as the headline from the scoreboard read:
...Soto atones as Cubs top ChiSox
Atones for what? Every night after a game, players descend upon their favorite restaurant, bar, or club and get drunk. They don't get tested for alcohol that night or even the following morning and fans go blissfully unaware of the previous nights shenanigans. Except in the case of one Nick Adenhart. Not only was the driver that hit Adenhart's vehicle drunk, but so too was Adenhart, as well as Adenhart's driver. To my knowledge, we don't have intensive laws against high-driving, and to date, there haven't been many (or any) deadly car accidents because the driver was driving high, and only going 20 in a 35... Because the driver was so high.
The Adenhart incident is a tragedy and there is no attempt to paint the departed in a negative light. We have all either gotten behind the wheel, or allowed some other impaired driver bring us home, while drunk. But, which is the the greater threat? Getting high, or getting drunk? The results seemingly speak for themselves, but the decision is ultimately yours.
One thing is for certain, this was not Soto's first meeting with Mary Jane and it certainly won't be his last, he'll just more careful about the timing. So, if a 26 year-old man can climb his way into the Bigs, getting high on occasion (or often), and (most likely) not seriously endangering his or anyone else's life, then what is the issue? No, weed does not necessarily impact performance. No, he should not have to apologize for his actions. No, children do not take their pot-smoking cues from professional athletes who have tested positive for dope. Yes, you are ignorant if you think otherwise.
So pump the breaks, ESPN. Either laugh it off and chalk it up to the over-hyped non-sense that it is, or just report it as news. Shit, I got high this morning and still went to work. Think my boss or anyone else around me knows? Aside from the other person that's high, the answer is "Hell nah." Whatever you do, don't mount your high horse and make this young man feel any worse than he already does. He's already been embarrassed more than he should have been and doesn't need you piling on (as if he needs it, have you seen the dude's numbers lately? KILLING my fantasy squad). It's just some weed... There's no slippery slope here... Take a cue from Massachusetts and for once, ride a refreshing wave of just apathy.
So, we never began this project with the intention of turning it into a polistic meditation on local sports teams, our individual hopes and fears, combined with a glaring distaste for divisional, regional, and historical rivals. In fact, the original intent was to be as anonymously mysterious as possible as to our whereabouts, affiliations, and orientation. We were to utilize this literary platform as an outlet to express our opinions, realize our creative capacities, and in some instances, just blow off some steam.
However, it seems that the playoffs bring out the animal within us all, forcing our passions to the forefront and bumping the balancing tendencies of our wisdom to the back of the bus. Our victory-starved attentions are devoted strictly to the prize at hand and we cannot be concerned with the menial details that often command our excitement-seeking minds, that are so easily led to wander during the stillness of the pre-elite season.
But the question is begged, does this apparent bias necessarily impact the quality and output of the project at hand, specifically the material put forth on this blog? The blogosphere is rife with sites devoted specifically to local coverage, and while some are crass exercises in over-the-top, manicheanism, specialization should not be dismissed outright. After all, while proximity can certainly restrain one from seeing the big picture, it can also produce a valuable microscopic viewpoint that allows the casual viewer the insight into the details that make a team or individual support-worthy and/or worthy of disdain... or even indifference.
What is more, is it easier to present a less biased scope of material if you happen to reside in an area, or if your support rests in an historically unsuccessful region? It is an absolute rule, that when your hometown team is not performing, your interest, and interest at large, declines. Call it being a fair-weather fan, but this phenomenon is completely natural. Sure, you still love your team, but in order to maintain a heightened interest in your sport of choice, you latch onto different aspects of the game. Maybe you begin closely following just one player from your team (In 2006, I became an early Rondo advocate in lieu of the C's dreadful performances) players from other teams in the league (the year prior I became a big Nash fan). It is almost as if your love of the game, while not allowing you to continuously support the floating turd that is your home team, pushes you toward something positive within that game. For the positive force of pulling for something, is so much greater than the negative energy of pushing against something. Generally, speaking.
On the flip side, and forgive this, but if you live in Boston where the Red Sox, Patriots, and Celtics have been having great success in recent years, the positive is provided to you without needing to hit the road in search of a new object in which to invest your passion. Therefore, your passions are occupied with something familiar, which you have essentially been trained, and even brain-washed, to love throughout your entire life. And so, you enjoy talking about it, and you are capable of doing so, and therefore, you do so. And if you are good at it, well then maybe you open a new minds in the process, or at least spur some healthy debate.
I am not saying that this validates the noticeable turn in content on this site. However, I am saying that there is a reason, which is at the very least is debatable, and should not be dismissed in this case. We will strive toward the objective more and more in the future as we mature, but allegiances will be apparent regardless of our best practices, and biases will be presented no matter how hard we fight against them. However, unless these tendencies lead to a clear and demonstrable reduction in quality of content, then all normative judgments should be left aside... and/or to yours truly.
So for the first year in-a-row, the eternally spiteful and snobbish Pulitzer Board of Bozo's have audaciously, foolishly, and no doubt, soon to be repeatedly refused to honor FSD with the prize(s) that it so rightfully deserves! FSD has clearly carried the torch of responsible and significant journalism for months (months!) up until this point, and we demand recognition for our toils.
For example, was our muckraking piece on fraud in the mainstream media, not to up to Pulitzer's Investigative Reporting standards?
Or, has our educational series on professional hockey not lived up to the lofty Public Service expectations of the Board?
And I just refuse to believe that our attention-grabbing Braking News segments have not lived up to the... Breaking News (Wait, is that how it's spelled?) Reporting criteria laid out by the commission.
I wonder why it is even referred to as a competition if the winners are pre-ordained according to the Board's own elitist standards. I mean, what does the New York Times have that I don't have aside from an army of editors fact-checking and proofreading away? If you said, "a sense of humor", well then we've just reached the tip of the iceberg.
Do not think you have heard the last from me Monsieur Pulitzer. I will be sitting at your front door, knocking when you're getting ready to go to sleep, and snoozing on your front steps when you are heading off to work in the morning. The masses will be heard! There are dozens of us!
DOZENS!
