Archive for the ‘Stupid’ Category
Milwaukee Brewers Beat Orioles in Thriller…and other Brewers News
Folks, last night the Milwaukee Brewers beat the Baltimore Orioles in ten innings, 7-6. The Brewers sent up Yovani Gallardo, a pitcher scheduled to start Wednesday night’s ballgame, to pinch hit for closer Francisco Rodriguez, who’d been sent out at the top of the 10th to keep the game tied. Gallardo got a ringing double, missing a home run by maybe a foot, which drove home the winning run (Mark Reynolds, who’d been intentionally walked and was standing on first base).
This was a great game for the Brewers.
They weren’t perfect, but they got the job done. Jonathan Lucroy, of all people, tied the game up with an infield single in the bottom of the ninth (Lucroy is known for his clutch hitting and currently has a nine-game hitting streak, but he rarely gets infield hits). The bullpen was stellar, again, after starting pitcher Matt Garza fell apart in the 7th (though, admittedly, an error by SS Jean Segura didn’t help matters and prolonged the inning).
Still, what did I find when I went to look at the sports section at various Internet sites this morning? In addition to this fun story, there was something much darker.
According to Brewers General Manager Doug Melvin, OF Khris Davis actually had a threat made against his life via Twitter back when the Brewers were playing the Cubs in Chicago. (This was about ten days ago, give or take a few.) Davis said he reported it to Major League Baseball, and Melvin says it’s “been handled.”
No one should threaten anyone with death. Period. Not via Twitter, and not via any other means, either. This behavior is reprehensible. It cheapens every fan, everywhere, when someone makes death threats against a player for any reason.
In short, I’d like to see some common sense when it comes to baseball fans.
Yes, criticize the players for their play on the field when they make mistakes. Definitely compliment the players when they do something right — or better yet, something unexpected, like Gallardo’s walk-off double. Go ahead and exercise your freedom of speech as much as you like . . . but do not make death threats against players.
Period.
Arizona’s “Religious Freedom” Bill (aka SB 1062): Bad, Bad Bill that Needs to be Vetoed, Stat
What is wrong with the Arizona legislature?
Last week, on a mostly party-line vote, the Arizona legislature passed controversial state Senate Bill 1062, titled the “Religious Freedom of Expression” bill in much of the media. This bill seeks to amend the Arizona state statutes in order to allow people to deny services to people who don’t meet their own religious standards, as best I can discern, and is widely seen as an anti-LGBT measure.
As you might expect, many people — in and out of Arizona — are calling upon Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) to veto SB 1062, including both of its United States Senators — Republican John McCain, and Republican Jeff Flake. In addition, three Republican members of the state Senate who just voted for the bill last week are also calling for it to be vetoed. And their reasoning is somewhat surprising.
From the story at the Los Angeles Times:
“While our sincere intent in voting for this bill was to create a shield for all citizens’ religious liberties, the bill has instead been mischaracterized by its opponents as a sword for religious intolerance,” State Sens. Bob Worsley, Adam Driggs and Steve Pierce wrote in a letter. “These allegations are causing our state immeasurable harm.”
In other words, they are saying the perception of the bill is harming the state much more than they thought, so the bill should be vetoed even though they still believe it’s a good bill.
(Hard to believe they didn’t understand just last week that they were making a mistake, but better late than never.)
The problem I see with SB 1062 goes far beyond it conceivably being an anti-LGBT measure. While that’s more than bad enough, after reading this bill in its entirety, I see it as having a much more fundamental flaw:
It is against the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Plain and simple.
Why?
Well, the First Amendment is pretty straightforward. It says that you cannot establish a state religion, but you cannot deny someone the ability to express his or her own religious faith, either. And it also says you cannot deny freedom of expression (among several other things) . . . all of which seem in direct contradiction to Arizona’s SB 1062.
You see, if you allow a bill like this to stand as read, it conceivably allows someone to deny someone service based upon your religious faith or your own, personal beliefs. It makes your own discrimination allowable under Arizona’s state constitution, and further it shields you from harm if someone then sues you because you contravened their rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution of freedom of expression or freedom of religion.
None of that is acceptable.
Furthermore, there are additional, practical reasons as to why SB 1062 should be vetoed without delay by Gov. Brewer, including these stated by the website Arizona Central:
The CEOs of the state’s top business groups – Greater Phoenix Economic Council, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, Greater Phoenix Leadership and the Southern Arizona Leadership Council – want Brewer to veto.
“The legislation is also already clearly having a negative effect on our tourism industry, one of the largest sectors of the economy,” several of the CEOs wrote. “The bill could also harm job creation efforts and our ability to attract and retain talent.”
From reading this, it seems these CEOs see SB 1062 as being a job-killer.
But wait, here’s more. From Arizona Central’s editorial:
The damage will grow the longer this bill survives. Brewer can start the healing with a quick, decisive veto. She can use the opportunity to loudly and clearly tell the world that Arizona is an open, welcoming state that does not countenance discrimination.
The Legislature’s approval of the bill undermined the state’s goal of attracting high-tech industry. Seventy percent of people born after 1980 support same-sex marriage, according to Pew Research. High-tech firms locate in places talented, young people find attractive.
The right to refuse service bill makes Arizona an unattractive butt of late-night comedy and snarky tweets.
While I’m not necessarily moved by the need for any state to specifically attract “young people,” I agree that if you want high-tech industry, you want smart people of all ages. And most smart people just do not see the practical sense in legalized discrimination, regardless of age . . . which is why there are people in all age groups who believe marriage should be a civil right irrespective of whether or not your partner is of the opposite sex or the same sex, providing you are both of sound mind and are both adults.
So to sum up, here’s the two big problems with Arizona’s SB 1062:
- It appears to legalize discrimination against people based on a person’s religious beliefs — a no-no under the U.S. Constitution.
- And it appears to be something that’s highly impractical that actively harms the state of Arizona.
If I were Gov. Brewer, I would veto this bill without any further delay . . . it’s clearly the right thing to do, it will save the state of Arizona from having to defend this terrible bill in court (where it’s likely to be struck down and the state penalized for wasting the federal government’s precious time), and it will stop harming the state’s image in the court of public opinion.
The Governor has until February 28 to either veto this bill or sign it. So keep your eyes on Arizona, to see if she’ll do the right thing . . .
Or not.
NBC’s Christin Cooper Pushes Bode Miller to Tears After Bronze Medal Win
Every time I think I’ve seen it all when it comes to the Sochi Olympic Games, something happens to make me change my mind.
In Sunday’s Super-G Olympic ski race, American Bode Miller won the bronze medal (actually tying with Canadian Jan Hudec) behind fellow American Andrew Weibrecht and gold-medal winning Kjetil Jansrud of Norway. In doing so, the thirty-six-year-old Miller became the oldest Olympic medalist in skiing history, and has now won six Olympic medals — one gold, three silvers, and two bronzes.
However, NBC reporter Christin Cooper, herself a past Olympic medal winner in skiing (silver in 1984 in the Giant Slalom), pushed Miller way too far in an interview aired in prime-time television an hour or so ago. The interview has been transcribed by Yahoo’s Fourth-Place Medal column; here’s Cooper’s first question and Miller’s first answer:
Cooper: Bode, such an extraordinary accomplishment, at your age, after a turbulent year, coming back from knee surgery, to get this medal today, put it in perspective. How much does this mean to you?
Miller: I mean it’s incredible. I always feel like I’m capable of winning medals but as we’ve seen this Olympics it’s not that easy. To be on the podium, this was a really big day for me. Emotionally, I had a lot riding on it. Even though I really didn’t ski my best, I’m just super super happy.
This is a perfectly reasonable question, and a good answer by Miller. No problems here.
Next was Cooper’s second question:
Cooper: For a guy who says that medals don’t really matter, that they aren’t the thing, you’ve amassed quite a collection. What does this one mean to you in terms of all the others.
Miller: This was a little different. You know with my brother passing away, I really wanted to come back here and race the way he sensed it. This one is different.
This, again, is a reasonable question and a good answer by Miller. He was starting to tear up at this point, though, and most interviewers would’ve backed off and thanked him for his time.
For whatever reason, Cooper did not do this.
Here’s Cooper’s third question and Miller’s third answer:
Cooper: Bode, you’re showing so much emotion down here, what’s going through your mind?
Miller: Um, I mean, a lot. Obviously just a long struggle coming in here. It’s just a tough year.
This wasn’t a terrible question, but it wasn’t good because Miller was already in distress. Miller again gave a credible answer, but he teared up and was having a lot of distress in the process.
Again, most interviewers would’ve backed off. But again, Cooper did not do this.
Instead, here was Cooper’s fourth question and Miller’s abortive fourth answer:
Cooper: I know you wanted to be here with Chelly, really experiencing these games. How much does this mean to you to come up with this great performance for him? And was it for him?
Miller: I don’t know if it’s really for him but I wanted to come here and, I dunno, make myself proud, but … (trails off)
Here is when Cooper made a big mistake. She mentioned Chelone Miller, Bode’s brother, by name — Chelone was only 29 when he passed away in 2013 of a seizure, and was considered a possibility to make the Sochi Olympics in snowboarding until the end of his life.
Then Cooper made an even bigger mistake — she asked a fifth and final question:
Cooper: When you’re looking up in the sky at the start, we see you there and it looks like you’re talking to somebody. What’s going on there?
Miller: (breaks down and cries, Cooper puts an arm on him)
Now, this was just way out of line. Miller had answered the question already, as best he could, at least twice, and was obviously emotional. (Cooper even said this, earlier, so she was aware of it.) His brother has been dead for less than a year, for pity’s sake (see this story about Chelone Miller’s passing if you don’t believe me). The wound is still fresh, and Miller was showing the strain after Cooper’s second question.
But she didn’t back off.
As a journalist — no matter how unemployed I may be at the moment — I can tell you right now that Cooper’s behavior was completely wrong. She should’ve backed off after the second question and not asked the third, but once she did ask the third and saw that Miller was so emotional, she should definitely have backed off then.
That she instead chose to ask the fourth and fifth questions after he was already extremely upset for a completely understandable reason made absolutely no sense.
Fortunately, I’m not the only person out there who feels this way, either, as Yahoo’s Fourth-Place Medal column written by Mike Oz (about Olympic events) has also taken Cooper to task. Here’s a bit of that:
Reporters have to ask tough questions. It’s part of being a journalist. One of the hardest parts of the job — and one of the toughest nuances to learn — is knowing when enough is enough in an emotional situation. Cooper, it’s worth nothing, was a skier before getting a TV gig with NBC, not a lifelong journalist
Maybe when she looks back at the tape on this, she’ll realize that one question about Miller’s brother was enough — perhaps two would have been OK. But the third one, the one that broke Miller down into a ball of emotion, came off as, at best, insensitive and, at worst, cheap.
All I can say is, I sincerely hope so.
Because what Christin Cooper did wasn’t just poor journalism and wasn’t just insensitive.
It was plain, flat wrong on every level. Period.
Government Shutdown Finally Ends (with a Whimper, not a Bang)
Well, folks, it’s official: the federal government has re-opened for business. And it only took sixteen days for the United States Congress to get it done.
Consider me underwhelmed.
During the past sixteen days, many people far from the halls of Congress were hurt due to the Congress’s collective intransigence. The law of unintended consequences seems to apply, considering people as diverse as mollusk fishermen in Maine and Alaska, restaurant owners in rural Wisconsin and Oregon, and federal park goers the nation over had their lives interrupted.
And what good did all this do? Not a blessed thing, as it made the United States look like idiots — far worse than laughingstocks — in the eyes of the world. Here are just a few things pointed out by Ed Schultz on his “The Ed Show” program on MSNBC in the past few weeks: Most countries around the world are appalled by how the Congress shut down the federal government, including Germany, France, Russia, and the UK. Even Syria said they do better by their federal employees than we do, and that’s pretty bad.
But guess what? There’s one organization or country that’s known to be even worse than Syria, and even they are taking potshots at the United States. None other than the Taliban (yes, that Taliban) actually said Congress is “sucking the blood” from the American people.
(Words fail me, knowing that.)
So how low can this Congress go, anyway? They’ve already proven by this latest fiasco they’re all about petty political gamesmanship rather than doing the will of the American people. If they had been about the will of the people, the government wouldn’t have been shut down for one hour, much less sixteen whole days.
Because of the Congress’s obduracy, we now have China, of all nations, wondering why the American people aren’t in open revolt.
And that’s saying something.
Don’t get me wrong. There are still some good legislators, though not many. (My personal favorite Senator is Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an Independent.) These legislators want to do their jobs and work for the best interests of the American people by doing “the art of the possible,” (read: compromise) and they’re no doubt just as tired of these stupid partisan games as the rest of us.
But there are way too many sitting in Congress right now who don’t want to do anything at all. These are the ones actively harming the country.
I blame Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) for most of this latest mess. I realize he didn’t start it — Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) is usually credited instead — but Boehner had the power to bring a vote to the floor at any time in the past sixteen days. He just didn’t do it.
When a politician would rather pursue his own agenda instead of the good of the country, it’s time for that politician to go.
I’m not the only person ever to think this, either. The words Oliver Cromwell spoke in 1653 certainly seem to apply. But if you don’t have time to read all of Cromwell’s historic speech, you should at least read this one (a paraphrase of Cromwell’s), delivered by British Conservative Member of Parliament Leo Amery to outgoing Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1939 after Chamberlain’s policy of appeasing Adolf Hitler hadn’t worked. Consider, please, that Amery was one of Chamberlain’s best friends when you read the following words:
You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!
Honestly, isn’t this what all Americans want to say to Speaker Boehner right now? (If it isn’t, what planet are you living on?)
Milwaukee Brewers 2013 Woes Continue — Ryan Braun Accepts 65-Game Suspension, Out for the Year
Folks, when it rains, it pours.
While I was working on my previous update, I had written this about my favorite team, which are of course the Milwaukee Brewers. They are currently on a four-game winning streak, and I thought it worthy of celebration. So here’s what I said, moments before the news about Ryan Braun broke in Milwaukee:
The Milwaukee Brewers are on a post All-Star break roll, sweeping the Florida Marlins out of Milwaukee yesterday and winning all three low-scoring games due to excellent pitching (Friday’s starting pitcher was Kyle Lohse, Saturday’s was Yovani Gallardo, and Sunday’s was the rapidly improving Wily Peralta) by both starters and bullpen.
Let’s see how well they do against San Diego tonight, though I do think they should have an excellent chance as the Padres have won only two more games than the Brewers and are exactly the same in the loss column.
(Granted, it seems odd to quote myself.)
I wrote this prior to the knowledge that Braun had accepted a 65-game suspension and will consequently be out the rest of the 2013 season, forfeiting over $3 million of his 2013 salary. (Please see this link from Yahoo Sports for further details.) Which is why I pulled it out of the previous post, quoted it here, and now will have to discard all of that as the much bigger story is Braun’s upcoming absence for the remainder of the 2013 season.
Oh, brother.
Look. I’m someone who fully believed that Braun was innocent of using any performance-enhancing drug (or PED, for short). Mistakes can happen when it comes to drug testing; they’re rare, sure, but they still can happen, and it seemed plausible to me that a man whose physique had never changed, whose lifetime numbers (batting average, on-base-percentage, slugging percentage, etc.) had never changed, either, and who vehemently declared his innocence was worthy of defending.
It has also seemed to me, for quite some time, that Major League Baseball has a grudge against Ryan Braun. They are annoyed that he managed to win his arbitration case in 2012, and that he was never suspended at that time for PEDs. And they have continued to go after him since then, doing their best to vilify his reputation in the process.
So, what am I to think of this statement from Braun, then?
As quoted from the Yahoo Sports article by Jeff Passan:
“As I have acknowledged in the past, I am not perfect,” Braun said. “I realize now that I have made some mistakes. I am willing to accept the consequences of those actions. This situation has taken a toll on me and my entire family, and it has been a distraction to my teammates and the Brewers organization. I am very grateful for the support I have received from players, ownership and the fans in Milwaukee and around the country. Finally, I wish to apologize to anyone I may have disappointed – all of the baseball fans especially those in Milwaukee, the great Brewers organization, and my teammates. I am glad to have this matter behind me once and for all, and I cannot wait to get back to the game I love.”
This statement doesn’t really say anything, does it? Other than that Braun accepted punishment for unnamed “mistakes,” apologized for the “distraction” afterward, and wants to play baseball again, there’s nothing here for a fan of the Brewers to really hang her hat on.
This article by Milwaukee Journal Sentinel baseball beat writer Tom Haudricourt clearly states this about the Ryan Braun suspension:
Major League Baseball has suspended Brewers left fielder Ryan Braun without pay for the remainder of the 2013 season and he has accepted the penalty, meaning he was caught red-handed either buying and/or using performance-enhancing drugs.
The suspension takes place immediately, so Braun will be suspended for the final 65 games of the season, beginning with the Brewers’ game Monday night at Miller Park against San Diego. The sanction came as a result of MLB’s investigation into the infamous Biogenesis clinic, which was exposed as having sold PEDs to players after documents were released to various news agencies earlier this year.
The suspension also exposed Braun as a liar because he has stated many times that he never used PEDs and never wavered from that stance.
So it appears that Tom Haudricourt isn’t too thrilled with what happened here, either.
Again — as a writer, I am trained to spot inconsistencies. Braun’s story, as Tom H. clearly said, never wavered. Braun loudly proclaimed his innocence at every turn. Braun blamed the guy who collected the urine test for the reason it came up positive, and was able to make that stick, and doing so made it appear to me that Braun really was telling the truth. Especially as Braun hadn’t failed any other drug tests before, or since.
But there are other ways to cheat the system. Baseball itself knows that better than anyone, and fans — even good ones, like myself, who are aware of steroids and other PEDs and know something of their effects on the body — aren’t really able to fully grasp why someone like Ryan Braun, who seemingly has the world at his feet and has no reason to skirt the rules whatsoever, has now admitted to doing so.
Even if his admission has all the oomph of a non-admission, mostly because he hasn’t said exactly what he’s been accused of doing.
Baseball fans will forgive almost any player if he tells the truth about what he’s done. Andy Pettitte said he used HGH — human growth hormone — in an effort to heal from injury faster, and wasn’t suspended. Alex Rodriguez admitted to using unspecified PEDs a few years ago, and wasn’t suspended (though he may be now due to apparently using them again via Biogenesis). Fernando Vina admitted to using steroids when he was with the Brewers long after the fact — he was a broadcaster, by then — and no one has ever vilified him.
But when someone doesn’t admit it and apparently did use them — whether it’s Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire, or Rafael Palmeiro — fans get upset. And then the player in question faces consequences, including shunning, booing, boorish behavior by the fans, or worst of all, exclusion from the Baseball Hall of Fame.
My attitude regarding PED use remains much the same as it’s always been. I think if you’re trying to stay healthy to play baseball, that’s a lot different than trying to cheat the system, which is why McGwire, Sammy Sosa, and Bonds (if he really did use them) should be given a pass, as all of them had well-known health problems that steroids/PEDs may have alleviated. And if you’re willing to accept all sorts of adverse effects on your body, as seen by Lyle Alzado’s tragic death after his brilliant NFL career not so long ago, have at.
My particular problem with Braun isn’t that he used (or maybe didn’t use) PEDs. It’s that he still hasn’t come clean regarding that use.
I believe very strongly in redemption and second chances. But one of the things most people need to do before they can fully proceed with either is to be honest. With themselves. With the other important people in their lives.
So far, Ryan Braun hasn’t done this.
Like it or not, Braun is a public figure by the dint of his baseball stardom. That’s why whatever happened must be explained to those who’ve supported him from the beginning — some specific explanations, not today’s weasel-worded non-denial denial — the fans of the Milwaukee Brewers.
Until he does, he’ll probably face all sorts of unintended consequences of today’s admission. And he’ll keep on facing them until he’s finally, fully and freely explained just what happened here that’s bad enough for him to accept an unpaid suspension for the rest of the 2013 season.
MLB’s Refusal to Allow Competitor Pink Bats for Mother’s Day, Breast Cancer Awareness is Shameful
Folks, regardless of how poor my health is right now, there are some things that make me sit up and take notice.
Take this article from Yahoo Sports’ columnist Jeff Passan, which discusses major league baseball’s stalwart refusal to allow any pink bats with logos on them unless they’ve been acquired from Louisville Slugger itself, which has paid MLB a premium to be the only bat company allowed to put logos on them.
Mind you, the pink bats are to show support for breast cancer awareness, and are to be used this coming Sunday — Mother’s Day. Players started using pink bats back in 2006 to show their support for their mothers, wives, sisters, etc., who’ve had breast cancer. And while these bats back in 2006 were made by Louisville Slugger, there was nothing initially in the rules that said players couldn’t use bats made by other makers — which makes perfect sense.
Because this wasn’t supposed to be about the bats. It’s supposed to be about breast cancer awareness.
As Passan says (from the above-mentioned article):
Raising money for charity is often a painful process, and if a company like Louisville is willing to donate money – more than $500,000 since the inception of the program, it claimed on its Twitter feed – that is a great victory. At the same time, Louisville’s insistence on including the no-label clause for its competitors does more harm to the point of the day – increasing awareness – than its donation does good. The money is simply not worth the aggravation for any of the parties involved, particularly Louisville, which used its Twitter account to spin corporate gobbledygook about all the good it has done.
From a business sense, of course Louisville doesn’t want its competitors putting labeled pink bats in stores and claiming they’re just like the ones major leaguers swung. Then again, for such good friends of cancer research, Louisville seems far more concerned with ensuring a monopoly on that market than painting the batter’s box pink with every bat possible, manufacturer and label be damned.
The main reason this issue has come to a head a day before Mother’s Day (and the usage of the pink breast cancer awareness bats) is because Max Bat sent some pink bats to Minnesota Twins third baseman Trevor Plouffe and Baltimore Orioles outfielder Nick Markakis (among others). And when Plouffe found out he wouldn’t be allowed to use his pink breast cancer awareness bat because it has the Max Bat logo prominently displayed (in pink), he quite rightfully got upset and said something on Twitter that he later deleted. (Mind you, Plouffe was not rude; he was just being honest, and Passan’s article has the screen captures to prove it.)
Look. This may seem like an extremely obvious thing to say, but here goes: These special pink bats are for breast cancer awareness. So why should anyone care about what specific company makes them?
Isn’t the fact that Plouffe and Markakis want to honor their mothers, both of whom are breast cancer survivors, by using pink bats in a baseball game far more important than whether or not Max Bat makes their bats?
There is no excuse for MLB to allow corporate greed to rear its ugly head on a day that’s supposed to be about breast cancer awareness.
Which is why as a concerned baseball fan, and as the granddaughter of a breast cancer survivor, I call upon MLB to allow any and all of its players to use whatever regulation pink bats they have — whether they’re Louisville Sluggers or not, whether Louisville Slugger paid for the “exclusive use” of the LS pink bats or not, and whether they have logos prominently displayed or not — in order to support the cause of breast cancer awareness.
Because refusing to do so is not just cowardly. It’s downright shameful.
Biased Judging Rears Its Ugly Head Again in Figure Skating
Folks, when I turn on the World Figure Skating Championships in any year, I expect to see great competition. I expect to see artistry, athleticism, dynamic performances, and proper, unbiased judging that’s based on what the figure skater in question actually does, rather than whether or not the judges in question like the figure skater.
I don’t always get it.
In 2010 at the Vancouver Olympics, United States figure skater Johnny Weir, a three-time U.S. champion, was denied a place on the podium. There was never any explanation given for this, even though Weir arguably skated the best and cleanest program of any of the top male skaters. Other skaters who finished in front of him included Patrick Chan (5th), who fell, Stephane Lambiel (4th), who fell, and Daisuke Takahashi (3rd), who also fell but received the bronze medal anyway. Nobonari Oda, who had a skate lace break, necessitating a break in the action while he went to get a new one and a mandatory deduction taken off his score, finished just behind Weir.
Weir was able to rise above this unfair result, and has become one of the most popular, visible, and undoubtedly flamboyant figure skaters of his era. But he shouldn’t have had to do so.
Instead, he should have won the bronze that night, and be known forever after as an Olympic medalist.
Today, there were two biased and inexplicable judging events at the 2013 Worlds. (Note that Weir, being injured, did not compete in the U.S. Nationals, much less this particular competition. But he did take in the action. More on that later.)
The first problematic judging was seen in Friday afternoon’s pairs event, held in London, Ontario, Canada. German pair Aliona Savchenko and Robin Szolkowy skated a flawed, yet entertaining program that normally would’ve landed them in fourth or fifth place if the skating alone had been judged. However, they were instead held up by remarkably high program component scores — what used to be called the “artistic presentation” scores — and won the silver medal over two more deserving Canadian pairs, Meagan Duhamel/Eric Radford and Kirsten Moore-Towers/Dylan Moscovitch. The Canadian pairs had to settle for third and fourth place, respectively.
Universal Sports Network’s color commentator, Peter Carruthers (himself a silver medalist at the 1982 Worlds and the 1984 Olympics in pairs), couldn’t believe it. He even said — rare for a commentator — that he felt the PCS scores had been “padded” to help Savchenko and Szolkowy out.
But that, bad as it was, paled compared to tonight’s fiasco in the men’s singles competition.
Denis Ten of Kazakhstan went out and skated the performance of his life in the men’s long program. He was by far the best and most entertaining skater, and — more importantly — he didn’t fall. And Ten won the free skate . . . but somehow still finished second to Patrick Chan of Canada. Despite Chan’s two outright falls, three double-foot landings, and several jumps that looked to the naked eye as if they were under-rotated in Chan’s long program, Chan — just like Savchenko and Szolkowy before him — was “held up” by overly inflated PCS scores.
And what’s so silly about this is that Chan had a very good short program. That gave him a lead of nearly ten points going into tonight’s free skate. Due to Ten’s brilliant program, Chan’s lead would’ve evaporated if he’d been judged fairly. Especially considering all the times Chan fell, double-footed jumps and otherwise looked like he was sleepwalking through his program. Which was pretty much all of the final three minutes and thirty seconds.
Sure, Chan landed two quadruple jumps early on. (Ten, to be fair, did only one.) But other than that, Chan did not look like he deserved to be on the podium tonight, much less win the gold medal.
Much less be what he is right now — a three-time gold medalist at the World Figure Skating Championships, despite falling several times during his 2012 long program as well.
The only way I can reconcile Chan’s standing with the judges compared to what Chan actually does on the ice is this: The judges seem to have a love affair with Patrick Chan. They believe he has superb skating skills — which, to be honest, he does. (Not better than several others in the field tonight, but I’ll grant that he’s among the top five or six in the world among current, competitive “amateur” skaters.) They appreciate his artistry, far more than anyone outside of Canada does, and they reward him for it.
To the detriment of other skaters.
What’s really frustrating about tonight’s judging fiasco is that, lost in the shuffle, Brian Joubert of France skated a powerful, clean program that should’ve landed him in the top five — if not garnered him a place on the podium with a bronze. But the judges put his PCS marks down and did not give him credit for what he actually accomplished — shades of what they did to Weir in Vancouver in 2010.
Which is why Joubert, who skated very well — much better than many others, including Patrick Chan — landed in an undeserved spot, finishing in ninth place.
That’s just not right.
Other than that, Max Aaron of the United States came in seventh — good for him, especially considering tonight’s abhorrent judging — and Ross Miner did not do well at all, finishing in fourteenth place. (The crew at Universal Sports didn’t even show his long program, more or less conceding that it wasn’t very good.) This may have been Miner’s only shot ever to skate at the World Figure Skating Championships, as both Weir and former Olympic, World and U.S. Champion Evan Lysacek plan to compete for the two spots available for the 2014 Sochi Olympics in addition to three-time U.S. Champion Jeremy Abbott (who finished third at this year’s U.S. Nationals, barely missing a chance to compete at the Worlds) and, of course, reigning men’s champ Aaron.
At any rate, it’s not just me who’s frustrated and upset by the men’s event tonight. Here’s Johnny Weir’s take, from Twitter:
Johnny Weir-Voronov
@JohnnyGWeirThis judging is ridiculous and the only reason people buy it is because it’s in North America. Imagine the outcry if it were Russia+Plush!?
Then Weir posted this:
Johnny Weir-Voronov
@JohnnyGWeirMy world champion is
@Tenis_Den. No question. Congratulations. Everyone should be feeling some Kazakh pride!#Молодец
Earlier in his Twitter feed, Weir also had kind words for Brian Joubert:
Johnny Weir-Voronov
@JohnnyGWeirBrian Joubert’s performance was the most encouraging of the night. Our generation can still do it. 🇫🇷
Weir wasn’t the only well-known figure skater publicly left scratching his or her head regarding tonight’s judging. Here’s what United States figure skater Christina Gao had to say:
Amazing skate,
@Tenis_Den!#inspiring
Then, after Ten was inexplicably robbed of his rightful gold medal, she posted this:
Wait what? I’m confused by my own sport.
#somethingswronghere#FSworlds13 more like#BSworlds13
So if two really fine figure skaters think there’s something wrong, there probably is.
Clean it up, International Skating Union. Or soon, figure skating as a sport will be considered no better than World Wrestling Entertainment.
Fun to watch, sure. But . . . dare I say it . . . fixed.
Suzy Favor Hamilton Outed as Vegas Call Girl
This afternoon (December 20, 2012 to be exact), news broke that Olympian Suzy Favor Hamilton — one of the biggest female sports stars to ever come out of Wisconsin — has admitted to working as a high-priced call girl for a shady Las Vegas outfit called Haley Heston’s Private Collection.
Here’s a link to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel’s story and a relevant quote:
Suzy Favor Hamilton, a three-time Olympian who capitalized on her wholesome image as an elite runner, mother and wife to land lucrative endorsement deals and motivational speaking engagements, has admitted to leading a double life for the last year as a high-priced call girl.
In a stunning confessional via her Twitter account, following a story published on thesmokinggun.com, Favor Hamilton wrote that she was drawn to escorting “in large part because it provided many coping mechanisms for me when I was going through a very challenging time with my marriage and my life.”
The 44-year-old Favor Hamilton, a Stevens Point native and former University of Wisconsin track star, admitted to working as “Kelly Lundy” with Haley Heston’s Private Collection, one of Las Vegas’ premier escort services, in the thesmokinggun.com story.
“I do not expect people to understand,” she wrote on her Twitter account. “But the reasons for doing this made sense to me at the time and were very much related to depression.
“I have been seeking the help of a psychologist for the past few weeks and will continue to do so after I have put things together.”
What troubles me here is not just that Favor Hamilton is a married woman with a seven-year-old child, though that’s bad enough.
Nope. What bugs me is that Favor Hamilton is quoted as admitting that her husband “tried to get (her) to stop” and that he “wasn’t supportive of (her) need to do this at all.”
Which, mind you, is the way most husbands are likely to behave when it comes to thinking about their spouse being a paid escort who gave away the “full girlfriend experience” and was rated quite highly by The Erotic Review, which is called by the Smoking Gun article that the Journal-Sentinel references as “the Zagat guide of the escort business.”
So it seems that Suzy Favor Hamilton has more than a few problems here — she’s been working as an escort when she’s not destitute (her husband is employed, she owns a realty firm and they live in a $600,000 home), she’s been fighting depression for the past year or more and if her marriage isn’t in trouble because of all this, she must have the most supportive husband in the history of the universe.
While I have never understood the need for men or women to go outside their marriages, I do know that not everyone is meant to be monogamous. So for those people who have admitted open marriages and the like, I made up my mind a long time ago not to judge them even though I freely admit that I don’t get it.
So the sex part of the equation isn’t what is so very troublesome, even though I don’t really understand what would drive a high-powered woman like Favor Hamilton to go outside her marriage and have a number of risky sexual encounters for money.
It’s the lack of trust issue that bothers me more.
Favor Hamilton is someone who’s had a squeaky clean image. She’s had endorsement deals with Disney, various running firms, has been a model in more ways than one and has been someone female runners have looked up to for the past twenty years or more in Wisconsin and much of the Midwest.
So apparently, in order for her to somehow feel better about herself, she had to throw this all away and construct an alter ego of “Kelly” the escort. Who was willing to do just about anything if the price was right because she still had the body and panache and knew how to speak the high-powered language of well-heeled men in order to better separate them from their money.
Why this intelligent, beautiful woman couldn’t find herself in some other way, I just don’t know. Why would she would risk her career for this, much less her marriage? Why would she ever entertain such a thing, considering that it’s well-known that women who become prostitutes (the not-so-nice name for “call girls”) rarely retain custody of their children?
And what about the IRS audit that has to be on the horizon? Because it would be ridiculous to assume that she’s declared all of the money she’s made as a $600-per-hour escort on her tax forms.
All of this happened because Favor Hamilton apparently enjoys risky sex in extremely expensive hotel rooms with men she doesn’t really know.
This seems so off-the-wall, so uncharacteristic, and so utterly absurd that I feel like I’ve fallen into a parallel universe.
Yet it’s the truth.
Suzy Favor Hamilton, runner and Olympian, mother and realty owner, is also a call girl.
What a terribly sad thing to have happen . . . and she did it to herself.
US Rep. Scott DesJarlais: One of the Most Hypocritical Reps in America
One of the political stories that’s been flying under the radar in Wisconsin this week is the bad behavior and utter stupidity of Republican United States Representative Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee. DesJarlais, a medical doctor, according to the Chattanooga Times Free Press, has done the following things:
- Carried on at least two sexual trysts with patients
- Had at least three sexual encounters with co-workers
- Slept with at least one pharmaceutical representative
But what’s making the news more than DesJarlais horrendously bad judgment is this: he’s a pro-life legislator. But he encouraged his ex-wife to have not one but two abortions — one of which appears to have been medically necessary, while the other probably wasn’t — and didn’t tell his constituents a thing.
All of this came out due to the lengthy transcript of DesJarlais’s 2001 divorce trial; the transcript had been requested by the Times Free Press prior to the election, but as it hadn’t been completely typed up, it didn’t get released until two days after all the votes had been counted.
But DesJarlais didn’t pay a price at the ballot box, possibly due to the fact that much of this wasn’t public knowledge. As the Washington Post account puts it:
DesJarlais . . . (won) reelection with just slightly less of the vote than he took in his first campaign in 2010. He defeated state Sen. Eric Stewart (D) 56 percent to 44 percent.
However, DesJarlais’ medical license should be in jeopardy due to these recent revelations, as DesJarlais most definitely violated most of his professional ethics — not to mention whatever is left of his good, common sense.
Some of what DesJarlais admitted to during his divorce trial is so repugnant that it’s hard to even fathom it. As the Times Free Press article points out:
The transcript reveals new details about DesJarlais’ interactions with a 24-year-old-patient, who claimed she became pregnant with DesJarlais’ child during a brief fling in 2000 that ended with the doctor pressing her to have an abortion.
DesJarlais, who is now 48 years old, admitted in court to urging the woman over the phone to get an abortion, but said the whole conversation was a scheme orchestrated by him and his wife — with whom he had reconciled — to get the 24-year-old to admit she was not really pregnant.
So, did you catch all of that? DesJarlais, who was married at the time, slept with a much-younger woman and apparently got her pregnant. Then he pressured her to get an abortion.
Mind you, the last part isn’t even the worst part, though it is extremely hypocritical due to DesJarlais’ strong pro-life stance.
Nope.
The absolutely worst part of this extremely repugnant episode is that DesJarlais got his own wife to help him pressure this poor young woman.
(Why DesJarlais’ then-wife did that, I’ll never know.)
All of this adds up to one thing — this man, Scott DesJarlais, should not be a United States Representative. Not in Tennessee.
Not anywhere.
DesJarlais has a terrible attitude, as he seems to believe that he’s above it all. And that he’ll get away with it all, too . . . all of this because he was voted back into the US House of Reps.
For the moment, it appears that DesJarlais will get away with it. (As in, keep his current job; I would hope that the Tennessee Board of Health will finally strip DesJarlais of his medical license.)
However, it may not be all gravy for DesJarlais in the next election cycle as the Times Free Press article states:
But according to Republican state Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey, the congressman’s political life could be endangered in 2014. Asked before Thursday’s disclosures how many Republican senators he expects might challenge DesJarlais in the 4th District primary, Ramsey quipped, “How many live in it?”
While this may hold some promise for 2014 and beyond, that does nothing for the poor people of DesJarlais’ district right now. Instead, they’re stuck with one of the most hypocritical members in the House.
Aand considering how many hypocritical people sit in that chamber right now, that’s really saying something.
Barb Caffrey's Blog 