Sorry for the lay off. But now there is important things to discuss. It involves again the worst insurgents in the battle for America: The Sportswriters. Easy people, I have not moved to the Unabomber shack to continue my postings, nor will The Turner Diaries now become required readings for all FEF fans. I am just a little fed up with the sportswriters and their infusing of their personal beliefs on politics into everyday readings.
Let's remember the Muhammad Ali issue. He is heralded for speaking out against Vietnam. Obviously, everyone was against Vietnam, correct? Uh, no. Hard for Mike Lupica and Bob Ryan to believe, but many, as in well over half of America supported our soldiers overseas while this vocal minority were more interested in whining and doing drugs. Obviously, no one wants to fight in a war fought by Democrats, but that is for another column. In the Tiger Woods Sports Century, sportswriters tell us that he has not reached his potential because he is not raising political issues. So, if Tiger Woods talked of how important tax cuts are for economic growth, or how quotas based on race are keeping minorities down by lowering standards would the sportswriters be happy? I can really see Mike Lupica screaming, "Thank God, Tiger Woods is speaking for conservative America!" Let me hold my breath for that revelation.
The excuse is not what the cynical writers say either. Their excuse is that writers write for controversy. They argue that they just want something to write about. They do not pick sides. Right. Ask Vijay Singh about that. He spoke his mind and stood up against the insanity of women playing as a sideshow in tournaments, and he was crucified from the first time he paused. If they really wanted the debate to continue to write about it, would there not be a couple writers to defend him? At the least, the sportswriters would act like there was an opportunity to defend the other side of the argument?
The issue is these writers have no counterargument in their newsrooms. There is no conservative sportswriters. There is no one willing to put a halt to the advance of liberal agendas in sports. It looks like news 10-15 years ago (Pre Fox News). Watch a debate with Stephen A. Smith versus a hapless white reporter. By the end of the argument, Smith is screaming so loudly at the other guy for being a racist, the man looks beaten down and I am sure he has apologized for slavery, Jim Crow, Plessy v Ferguson, and has offered half his salary as reparations. I am not saying that everything SAS is wrong, nor do I side with the white debater regardless. The point is we cannot have real debate without an issue having both sides to it.
So this front on the FEF must not be surrendered. Since there is not a National Review or Washington Times for sports, and judging by the searches for honest reviews on these people, I will reinforce this issue here. Once again, thanks for visiting and I apologize for the layoff. In the words of the chief defender of freedom, I will charge those in their sportswriter perch: "Let freedom reign!"
Wow. I really don't have to say anything after reading what your buddy Lucien had to say. Don't agree with all his points, but I do have to say your syntax is a bit off today. I waited days for this? Hell, the comment is more fun than the post.
Posted by: The Misspent Life | June 29, 2004 at 14:53
Hey, people. Notice my other comment? How it refers to something that isn't there? Yeah, well, FEF erased the comment. So much for freedom.
Posted by: The Misspent Life | July 01, 2004 at 06:36
Really good work. I found a lot of profound information which can help me to go on. Thanks for all this input.
Posted by: Maggie Sue | November 15, 2004 at 00:29