JOCK ENGLISH
JOCK ENGLISH:
Here’s the letter I wrote to the LA Times, along with responses. If you want to add yours, feel free:
To: Sports@latimes.com:
The most shocking part of the Rose Bowl was the illiterate interview given by the MVP, Texas third year student Vince Young ("They was doin' a great job," among many others). Don't major universities have an obligation to educate the athletes they exploit?
Tony Medley
From screenwriter/columnist Burt Prelutsky:
****(I guess not. But considering how much moolah guys like Young and Bush are going to sign for, thanks to their "exploitation," I'd have to say, if that's exploitation, where do I go to get myself exploited?)
Burt
You're a writer; you've been exploited all your life. Tony
****(It was my choice to be a writer, though, just as it's a football player's choice to play for USC or Texas.) Burt
Well, I know nobody gets the last word with you, but universities exploit players because they make millions off of them and don't pay them a dime. Anything they get out of it is on the come, which is still a long shot, even if they don't get hurt. And they don't educate them or make them go to class, so they are depriving someone who really wants an education of one. Tony
****(That doesn't constitute exploitation. Keep in mind, though, that I am anti-college sports. I think it's shameful that college coaches are paid millions of dollars and that athletes take up space that should go to actual students. I think grads are silly who determine whether to contribute to their alma maters based on how well the teams perform are a bunch of bozos. Professional teams, be they football or basketball, should have minor league systems just like baseball. For good measure, I would do away with the NCAA. I would also put a halt to Olympic Games.) Burt
The only thing wrong with this is that it does, indeed, constitute exploitation. In fact, it's a poster child for exploitation. Tony
****(How so? They play football in exchange for room and board, an education if they want it, good coaching, and the opportunity to display their wares to potential employers waiting in the wings to make them millionaires. Exploitation, to my mind, consists of little kids earning pennies in Third World countries making over-priced sneakers so that Michael Jordan can become even richer than he already is.) Burt
I'll be happy to explain it to you. They take in people unqualified to be studying at their university for the sole purpose of them playing sports (UCLA, to my knowledge, doesn't even have a physical education major, so they have to major in something like kinesiology even if they never go to class). The only reason they are there is to play football or basketball. They think they are going to play in the NFL or NBA, but the odds are hugely against them. But the school makes millions off of their labors and gives them nothing in return. Don't talk about room and board and an "education if they want it." You and I know that's piffle. If the university said, "we'll give you room and board and an education if you want it and in return we 're going to make millions off you and cut you loose and the odds are you are going to be unemployable as an athlete and will end up doing manual labor," how many would take it? Virtually none. That, my friend, is exploitation.
Here’s the letter I wrote to the LA Times, along with responses. If you want to add yours, feel free:
To: Sports@latimes.com:
The most shocking part of the Rose Bowl was the illiterate interview given by the MVP, Texas third year student Vince Young ("They was doin' a great job," among many others). Don't major universities have an obligation to educate the athletes they exploit?
Tony Medley
From screenwriter/columnist Burt Prelutsky:
****(I guess not. But considering how much moolah guys like Young and Bush are going to sign for, thanks to their "exploitation," I'd have to say, if that's exploitation, where do I go to get myself exploited?)
Burt
You're a writer; you've been exploited all your life. Tony
****(It was my choice to be a writer, though, just as it's a football player's choice to play for USC or Texas.) Burt
Well, I know nobody gets the last word with you, but universities exploit players because they make millions off of them and don't pay them a dime. Anything they get out of it is on the come, which is still a long shot, even if they don't get hurt. And they don't educate them or make them go to class, so they are depriving someone who really wants an education of one. Tony
****(That doesn't constitute exploitation. Keep in mind, though, that I am anti-college sports. I think it's shameful that college coaches are paid millions of dollars and that athletes take up space that should go to actual students. I think grads are silly who determine whether to contribute to their alma maters based on how well the teams perform are a bunch of bozos. Professional teams, be they football or basketball, should have minor league systems just like baseball. For good measure, I would do away with the NCAA. I would also put a halt to Olympic Games.) Burt
The only thing wrong with this is that it does, indeed, constitute exploitation. In fact, it's a poster child for exploitation. Tony
****(How so? They play football in exchange for room and board, an education if they want it, good coaching, and the opportunity to display their wares to potential employers waiting in the wings to make them millionaires. Exploitation, to my mind, consists of little kids earning pennies in Third World countries making over-priced sneakers so that Michael Jordan can become even richer than he already is.) Burt
I'll be happy to explain it to you. They take in people unqualified to be studying at their university for the sole purpose of them playing sports (UCLA, to my knowledge, doesn't even have a physical education major, so they have to major in something like kinesiology even if they never go to class). The only reason they are there is to play football or basketball. They think they are going to play in the NFL or NBA, but the odds are hugely against them. But the school makes millions off of their labors and gives them nothing in return. Don't talk about room and board and an "education if they want it." You and I know that's piffle. If the university said, "we'll give you room and board and an education if you want it and in return we 're going to make millions off you and cut you loose and the odds are you are going to be unemployable as an athlete and will end up doing manual labor," how many would take it? Virtually none. That, my friend, is exploitation.
****(Sorry, but I have to disagree. Whether the school makes money isn't the determining factor. If you told an ignorant 18-year-old that the odds are slim that he'll have a professional career, but for the next four years, you will get to play all the ball you want, have easy access to thousands of coeds, get to see your name in the paper, perhaps get to play before TV audiences in the millions...or he can go get a job doing manual labor starting tomorrow, I doubt if he would view the scholarship as exploitative. And neither would I. A slim chance at making millions beats no chance at all, which is why so many people play the lottery.)
Burt
posted by Sweaty Palms | 11:28 AM
3 Comments:
****(Sorry, but I have to disagree. Whether the school makes money isn't the determining factor. If you told an ignorant 18-year-old that the odds are slim that he'll have a professional career, but for the next four years, you will get to play all the ball you want, have easy access to thousands of coeds, get to see your name in the paper, perhaps get to play before TV audiences in the millions...or he can go get a job doing manual labor starting tomorrow, I doubt if he would view the scholarship as exploitative. And neither would I. A slim chance at making millions beats no chance at all, which is why so many people play the lottery.)
Burt
Well, I tried to e-mail you, but, apparently, your mail server isn't accepting e-mail. Therefore, you -- congrats -- get to receive a public posting, instead:
[Regarding your review of Al Gore's latest movie.]
Huh. Your article was, shall I say, interesting. Truthful? No, not
really. Let's have a go, shall we?
1) You, yourself, can't make up your mind as to whether or not the glob is warming. At one point, you say "That something is happening is
irrefutable." Then, ONE PARAGRAPH LATER, you say, "...why global warming
is occurring (if it is)" Consistency when arguing about someone's lack of consistency is a good thing. You're lacking it.
2) While I haven't seen the movie, I've read enough reviews to know that
he showed a chart of carbon emissions, and their rampant rise over the
last 150-odd years. While this can't be definitively correlated to
humans, there really ain't a whole lot else that's going to cause a huge
rise in carbon emissions. You, however, seem pleased to go on ignoring
pretty darn hard circumstantial evidence. I hope you're in the jury when
I'm up for murder.
3) "I wish Gore and the left would devote their efforts to what man is
doing to the rainforest." HOLY FREAKING CROW! Hey, guy: you ever hear of the term "treehugger"? Wanna guess what it describes? Go ahead. I can't think of a single political figure -- right-wing or left -- who'd say that the left-wing doesn't care about the rainforests. You're amazing.
4) Your slam against Al for "inventing the Internet" is a sad and pathetic attempt at character assassination. At no point did he make this claim. See the Snopes article on it at http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp -- and note that Vinton Cerf, one of the dominant forces in the early days of the Internet, defends him strongly in the statements he actually did make.
5) I haven't read Mr. Crichton's book; however, the commentary you have
regarding it is interesting. It will require perusal at some point. As
for the "Little Ice Age," there is broad debate as to why it occured --
much akin to today's global warming. What isn't debated, however, was
spurious volcanic activity during the time, as well as possible influence
from de-population by way of the Black Death.
In summary, while I can't definitively state that humans are directly
responsible for the current global warming, I can say that it's foolhardy
to ignore the possibility until it's too late to do anything. I can also
state that I vastly prefer well-reasoned arguments, but that you far too
often were willing to stoop to insult and outright ignorance (see item #3, which still amazes me). (Heh. For the sheer hell of it, I plugged "Al Gore" and "rainforest" into Google; got me a right-wing slam:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-gorerainforest.htm ).
(Huh. The founder of the Rainforest Action Network told an audience at
the World Environment Day that "Al Gore needs little introduction.")
(And, lastly, Al's views on rainforests, themselves, are even passingly
referred to in his Wikipedia entry.)
So, go review movies. You seem pretty good at that. Leave your political meanderings at home, though.
Sincerely yours,
Ken D'Ambrosio
Merrimack, NH
Every college sports recruit has the opportunity to obtain a great education. If they choose to throw that away is their own choice, not exploitation.
Post a Comment
<< Home