Nick's Knacks

Photo courtesy of Creative Commons

These “Hitler is angry” spoofs never get old for me:

Unless you’re a die-hard NBAer, you probably don’t remember Paul Shirley the player. The undrafted member of the Bulls (’04) and the Suns (’05) has a made a substantially bigger (and it still isn’t that big) name for himself as a freelance blogger for ESPN. Until today.

ESPN has cut ties with the now member of Unicaja Malaga in the Spanish ABC, releasing this statement:

"He was a part-time freelance contributor. The views he expressed on another site of course do not at all reflect our company's views on the Haiti relief efforts. He will no longer contribute to ESPN.”

Sounds pretty juicy. I wonder what he expressed on that other site? Oh, here it is (buckle in for a long and bumpy ride):

===================================================================================

(From www.flipcollective.com)

If You Rebuild It, They Will Come, by Paul Shirley

Published: January 26, 2010

Posted in: Paul Shirley

I do not know if what I’m about to write makes me a monster. I do know that it makes me a part of a miniscule minority, if Internet trends and news stories of the past weeks are any guide.

“It”, is this:

I haven’t donated a cent to the Haitian relief effort. And I probably will not.

I haven’t donated to the Haitian relief effort for the same reason that I don’t give money to homeless men on the street. Based on past experiences, I don’t think the guy with the sign that reads “Need You’re Help” is going to do anything constructive with the dollar I might give him. If I use history as my guide, I don’t think the people of Haiti will do much with my money either.

In this belief I am, evidently, alone. It seems that everyone has jumped on the “Save Haiti” bandwagon. To question the impulse to donate, then, will probably be viewed as analogous with rooting for Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacy, or the Spice Girls.

My wariness has much to do with the fact that the sympathy deployed to Haiti has been done so unconditionally. Very few have said, written, or even intimated the slightest admonishment of Haiti, the country, for putting itself into a position where so many would be killed by an earthquake.

I can’t help but wonder why questions have not been raised in the face of this outpouring of support. Questions like this one:

Shouldn’t much of the responsibility for the disaster lie with the victims of that disaster?

Before the reader reaches for his or her blood pressure medication, he should allow me to explain. I don’t mean in any way that the Haitians deserved their collective fate. And I understand that it is difficult to plan for the aftermath of an earthquake. However, it is not outside the realm of imagination to think that the citizens of a country might be able to: A) avoid putting themselves into a situation that might result in such catastrophic loss of life. And B) provide for their own aid, in the event of such a catastrophe.

Imagine that I’m a caveman. Imagine that I’ve chosen to build my house out of balsa wood, and that I’m building it next to a roaring river because I’ve decided it will make harvesting fish that much easier. Then, imagine that my hut is destroyed by a flood.

Imagining what would happen next is easier than imagining me carrying a caveman’s club. If I were lucky enough to survive the roaring waters that took my hut, my tribesmen would say, “Building next to the river was pretty dumb, wasn’t it?.” Or, if I weren’t so lucky, they’d say, “At least we don’t have to worry about that moron anymore.”

Sure, you think, but those are cavemen. We’re more civilized now – we help each other, even when we make mistakes.

True enough. But what about when people repeat their mistakes? And what about when they do things that obviously act against their own self-interests?

In the case of mistakes and warnings as applied to Haiti, I don’t mean to indict those who ignored actual warnings against earthquakes, of which there were many before the recent one. Although it would have been prudent to pay heed to those, I suppose.

Instead, I’m referring to the circumstances in which people lived. While the earthquake was, obviously, unavoidable, the way in which many of the people of Haiti lived was not. Regrettably, some Haitians would have died regardless of the conditions in that country. But the fact that so many people lived in such abject poverty exacerbated the extent of the crisis.

How could humans do this to themselves? And what’s being done to stop it from happening again?

After the tsunami of 2004, the citizens of the world wailed and donated and volunteered for cleanup, rarely asking the important – and, I think, obvious – question: What were all those people doing there in the first place? Just as important: If they move back to a place near the ocean that had just been destroyed by a giant wave, shouldn’t our instinct be to say, “Go ahead if you want, but you’re on your own now.”?

We did the same after Hurricane Katrina. We were quick to vilify humans who were too slow to respond to the needs of victims, forgetting that the victims had built and maintained a major city below sea level in a known target zone for hurricanes. Our response: Make the same mistake again. Rebuild a doomed city, putting aside logic as we did.

And now, faced with a similar situation, it seems likely that we will do the same.

Shouldn’t there be some discourse on how the millions of dollars that are being poured into Haiti will be spent? And at least a slight reprimand for the conditions prior to the earthquake? Some kind of inquisition? Something like this?:

Dear Haitians –

First of all, kudos on developing the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Your commitment to human rights, infrastructure, and birth control should be applauded.

As we prepare to assist you in this difficult time, a polite request: If it’s possible, could you not re-build your island home in the image of its predecessor? Could you not resort to the creation of flimsy shanty- and shack-towns? And could some of you maybe use a condom once in a while?

Sincerely,

The Rest of the World

It shouldn’t be outlandish to hope that we might stop short of the reactionary word that is so often flung about after natural (and unnatural) disasters. That word: Rebuild. Thus, the tired, knee-jerk cycle of aid/assist/rebuild would be replaced by a new one: Aid/assist/let’s-stop-and-think-before-we-screw-this-up-again.

If forced to do so through logic-colored glasses, no one would look at Haiti and think, “You know what? It was a great idea to put 10 million people on half of an island. The place is routinely battered by hurricanes (in 2008, $900 million was lost/spent on recovery from them), it holds the aforementioned title of poorest nation in the Western hemisphere, and it happens to sit on a tectonic fault line.”

If it were apparent that Haiti would likely rebuild in an earthquake-resistant way, and if a cure could be found for hurricane abuse of island nations, then maybe one could imagine putting a sustained effort into rebuilding the place. But that would only be feasible if the country had shown any ability to manage its affairs in the past, which it has not done.

I can tell, based on my own reaction to that last sentence, that it might strike a nerve. The reader might be tempted to think, “We can’t blame the people of Haiti for their problems. Surely it’s someone else’s fault.” A similar sentiment can be found in this quote, from article on the geology behind the quake:

“Unfortunately, [Haiti]’s government was not in a position to really do much to prepare for the inevitable large earthquake, leaving tens of thousands to suffer the consequences.”

The sentiment expressed is one of outrage at the government. But, ultimately, the people in a country have control over their government. One could argue that in totalitarian regimes, they do not have much control, but in the end, it is their government. And therefore, their responsibility. If the government is not doing enough for the people, it is the people’s responsibility to change the government. Not the other way around.

Additionally, some responsibility for the individual lies with that individual.

A Haitian woman, days after the earthquake:

“We need so much. Food, clothes, we need everything. I don’t know whose responsibility it is, but they need to give us something soon,” said Sophia Eltime, a mother of two who has been living under a bed sheet with seven members of her extended family. (From an AP report.)

Obviously, a set of circumstances such as the one in which Ms. Eltime was living is a heart-wrenching one. And for that, anyone would be sympathetic. Until she says, “I don’t know whose responsibility it is.” I don’t know whose responsibility it is, either. What I do know is that it is not the responsibility of the outside world to provide help. It’s nice if we do, but it is not a requirement, especially when people choose to influence their own existences negatively, whether by having too many children when they can’t afford them or by failing to recognize that living in a concrete bunker might not be the best way to protect one’s family, whether an earthquake happens or not.

Ms. Eltime’s reaction helps define what is the crux of my problem with the reaction to this and to other humanitarian crises. I recoil at the notion that I’m SUPPOSED to do something. I would like to help, but only if I feel that my assistance is deserved and justified. If I perceive that I am being told to feel a certain way, and if I can point to a pattern of mistakes made in similar situations, I lose interest.

When I was young, the great humanitarian crisis facing our world – as portrayed by the media, anyway – was the starving masses in Africa. The solution found, of course, was to send bag after bag of food to those people, forgetting the long-understood maxim that giving more food to poor people allows them to create more poor people. (Admittedly, it’s a harsh truth.) At the time, my classmates and I, young and naïve as we were, thought we had come up with a better solution. “They should just go somewhere else,” we said. Our teacher grimaced, saying, “It’s not that simple.”

It still isn’t. And I’m not as naïve as I once was – I don’t think the people of Haiti have the option of moving. But I do think that our assistance should be restricted, like it should be in cases of starvation. It simply does not work to give, unconditionally. What might work is to teach. In the case of famine-stricken segments of Africa, teaching meant making people understand that a population of people needs a certain amount of food, and that the creation of that food has to be self-sustaining for the system to work. In the case of earthquake-stricken Haiti, teaching might mean limited help, but help that is accompanied by criticism of the circumstances that made that help necessary.

In the case of the Haitian earthquake, it’s heartening to see people caring about the fates of their fellow men. What is alarming, I think, is the sometimes illogical frenzy toward casting those affected by the earthquake as helpless, innocent souls who were placed on the island of Hispaniola by an invisible force. In the case of some, this analogy might well be accurate; children cannot very well control their destinies. And as far as sympathy goes, much of it should go to those children.

But children are brought into the world by their parents. Those parents have a responsibility – to themselves and to their kids – to provide. They have a responsibility to look around – before an earthquake happens – and say, “I need to improve this situation, because if a catastrophe were to happen, we’d be in bad shape.”

The people of whom I write are adults. Functional, human adults with functional, human adult brains. It is not too much to ask that they behave as such. That they stand up and say, “Yes, we screwed this up the first time. We are forever indebted to you. Now show us how we can do it right. So that, next time, we won’t need your help.”

====================================================================

Wowza! A simple “No, I haven’t donated” would have been fine, Paul.

Photo courtesy of Creative Commons

What do Brett Favre and Tiger Woods have in common? Okay, that could go any number of ways.

Brett Favre and Tiger Woods share an intriguing media thread: no matter how played out their respective scenarios seem to be, something new always pops up. No matter how hard they try to escape them…no matter how tired of them we may be…Brett and Tiger keep landing in the headlines.

And just when you thought the gratuity had been exhausted – the two land in the same story, with Elin caught in the middle. HEY! Get your mind outta the gutter. This isn’t some Britney Spears “3” video shoot.

Apparently, while Tiger “rehabs,” Mrs. Woods has been shackin’ up with the Favres.

Maybe Ryan Longwell can come over, too – make Elin feel more at home. Deanna will make hot cocoa and everybody can stay up late watching cable. I call the pull-out sofa!

Photo courtesy of Creative Commons

I’m not sure how this run ended up, but you’ve got to be pulling for Jill Cook to make it Vancouver – definitely all she’s cracked up to be:

Get that girl some Hammer pants!

Photo courtesy of Creative Commons

Remember the ad campaign that had the hidden camera in the fancy-pants Italian restaurant where the unsuspecting customers were served Pizza Hut’s Tuscani Pasta? All the people were like, “Wow this is amazing.” And then the manager says, “I have an announcement. All of your entrees were actually prepared by Pizza Hut!” And then the customers are all, “I can’t believe it!”

I always found it strange that the customers were surprised. Weren’t they a little suspicious when the restaurant required a suit a tie, but offered bacon mac ‘n cheese on the menu? That didn’t clue them into something being askew?

It’s stuff like that that makes me leery to buy into hidden camera claims.

I still don’t know where I’m at with this submission from Coke, but it’s pretty good stuff. I’m not sure I could trust the food, though. I mean, seriously. When was that pizza prepared? Where was that pizza prepared? By whom was that pizza prepared? I know you’re poor college students, but you’ve gotta have some self respect, kids!

“Ah, just give it some time, son. In a day or so, no one will even remember.”

Famous words spoken by every parent to every child. Just fill the seemingly insurmountable obstacle of embarrassment here ____. We’ve all been there, and more often than not, Mom or Dad was right. A few laughs. A few jeers. A few days. No one cares anymore.

And then there’s the kid that peed himself.

Remember that kid? Of course you do! No one forgets the time _____ peed himself in _____. That kind of stuff sticks in the brain like…well…pee in a carpet. Or pee on the hard courts of the Australian Open.

Tennis Fanhouse reports an Australian Open ball boy delayed a match between Donald Young and Christophe Rochus for 30 minutes when he had a little “oops I whizzed my pants.”

Young explained: "A ballboy started peeing on himself. So that was really unfortunate.''

Yeah, especially for Young who had just begun to seize momentum in the match.

"They came out with the blower,'' Young said, "and it wasn't working, so ...''

This is what I don’t get: it’s hardcourt tennis! It took ½ hour to dry that off? We had a dude in Wauwatosa Rec. League that was a chronic puker. The kid always wretched…just about every time on the court. It took all of 10 minutes for his rainbow yawn to bake onto that surface so firmly that it took multiple July thunderstorms to even make a dent in the top coat.

How much urine was coming out of this kid?

The only ball boy to have failed the tennis world more greatly is Kosmo Kramer.

The story may go away.  Scratch that, the story will go away…except for snarky references that will forever haunt Tiger on talk radio. 

But I hope that computer software nerds never stop developing games like this.

The NFL’s divisional playoff round was slightly overshadowed this weekend by the death of 26 year old budding NFL star Gaines Adams.  The official cause: cardiac arrest.  The likely culprit: an enlarged heart.

Anyone else thinking, “I wonder what he was using?”

I’m in no way attempting to minimize the tragedy of Adams’ passing.  Nor am I accusing Adams of any self destructive contribution to his passing.  I’m merely admitting to my first reaction, a response conditioned by the increasingly unfortunate company that is dead (young) athletes.

Get used to it, ‘cause I’m afraid we’re just getting’ warmed up.

Welcome to the GNC generation – where kids, I’m sorry…young adults, can walk into their neighborhood store and pick up anything from vitamin C to anabolic poppers.  Take a guess at which is the better seller.

Bigger, faster, stronger…at any cost, at much younger an age. 

Unfortunately, what isn’t being sold with the bottle is the following disclaimer:  The supplement downed to make possible your participation at the highest level, is precisely that which will make impossible your body’s ability to maintain under the rigors of the highest level. 

Translation: that consumed at 16 could kill you at 26.

It’s entirely possible that Gaines Adams was clean…has always been clean.  But what is clean? 

Every year, every sport adds a substance or two to the list of the banned.  If there’s one fact we know about substances, it is this: the chemistry of PEDs is always a step ahead of the testing.  Athletes today are using substances that their respective sport doesn’t even know about yet.  And worse, using substances that their sport is aware of, but hasn’t yet banned.

I pray to God that Gaines Adams suffered from a genetic heart defect that couldn’t possibly have been identified. 

I pray to God that Gaines Adams’ story is not one of: kid wants ticket to the big time – kid takes supplement - supplement helps him gain the necessary edge – supplement causes irreversible scarring of the heart…adult pays the ultimate price for the mistake of a kid.

Caught sleeping, er no?

That’s Packers Defensive Coordinator Dom Capers during Green Bay’s Wild Card loss to the Arizona Cardinals. Sure looks like he’s out, but if you don’t mind taking an alternate route with me, come along…

Here’s the context: Green Bay, trailing 24-10 at the half and 31-10 just 3:45 into the second half, has managed to close the seemingly insurmountable gap to a very manageable 31-24. Three plays later, it’s back to a 14 point cushion for Arizona.

Enter the video.

There’s Dom Capers, deeply focused on the (what is likely a trembling) voice on the other end, futilely explaining how the Cards just gashed their way into the endzone in 1:33 after Green Bay valiantly climbed back into the contest. Entirely unsatisfied with the rationalization, Capers lets out a “pfft,” complete with a body tremor (he was that mad), then frustratingly tosses his play sheet in a “why do I even use this thing if nobody’s going to execute the call?” motion.

Take that theory for a test drive:

Or he was just sleeping.

Entering the 2009 campaign, there was a dark cloud of uncertainty about the present day, and future, Green Bay Packers. Among the most notable questions:

• Who is Mike McCarthy? 13-3 or 6-10 or just average like his first go ‘round?

• Has Ted Thompson tallied more hits or more misses?

• Can Aaron Rodgers win, or is he a mere stat monkey? (For the record, I found this inquiry silly, but…)

• Can this team transition to a 3-4 effectively with the personnel it possesses, or are we in for another season of defensive gaffs and fourth quarter follies?

Sunday’s loss stings, but there are 31 painful endings to every NFL season. I think we’re gonna be OK.

• Mike McCarthy is a good coach. He makes mistakes. He has weaknesses. But he is a good coach, and it’s clear the roster plays hard for him. He, like this team, is learning how to win, and so far, it’s tough to argue with 38-26.

• I wasn’t sure about Ted’s decisions mid-season – even went so far as to say that I didn’t believe this team very talented. I’m pleased to say that I was wrong. There is crazy talent on this team…crazy young talent. And here’s the real upside: that crazy young talent has NFL experience. The ink may barely be dry on their birth certificates, but many are multi-year veterans of the league. Thompson has assembled a team that I believe it’s fair to say is just a couple of players away. He will forever be judged by his ability to find those players, to take the next step, but so far, he’s done a good job.

• And then there’s Aaron. He is a winner. He is a leader. It’s quite possible he was the only one who believed that his team wasn’t sunk at 17-0, 31-10, 38-17. Aaron Rodgers can flat out play, and has done so at a historical level.

o Back to Thompson for a second. It’s only two years into this, but I’ve seen enough to declare (barring injury) that Aaron Rodgers will be outstanding for years to come. Ted Thompson deserves credit for doing something that few have ever accomplished in the history of the NFL: replace a legend at the quarterback position. San Francisco did it. Jay Fielder had some nice years in Miami post-Marino. Help me out with anyone else. Chicago’s still living in the McMahon years. Dallas went through four between Aikman and Romo. Cinci shuffled for a decade after Boomer. The Bills after Kelly. The Broncos after Elway. The Giants after Simms, though they had some spotty success. The guy who replaced Brett Favre is the only QB in league history to bust off consecutive 4,000 yards passing seasons. Nice.

• The transition to the 3-4. I think it went pretty well. Flashes of invincibility…areas of genuine concern. The Pack’s D showed several personalities over 18 weeks, but all-in-all, they delivered on a lot of promises.

There was a plethora of questions coming in. After an 11-5 season and one of the best football games I have ever seen on Sunday, I’m comfortable with the answers heading out.

There’s a lot of “DAMN!” goin’ around regarding this photo of Tiger Woods in Vanity Fair.  I’ll say this – dude is cut.  He looks good.  He looks big.  He looks a lot bigger than he used to look.  He looks really big for a golfer.  But I don’t know.  I feel like it was much more impressive with the red shirt on.

Take off the street cred cap.  Put down the dumbbells.  Exhale.  Crack a smile.  Couldn’t that be just about anybody with a penchant for pushing plates? 

I absolutely believe he is artificially enhanced – steroids, HGH, something else, all of the above…whatever. There’s no doubt in my mind. My mind. But if there’s one thing we’ve learned from steroids in baseball, pinning performance enhancing drugs on a guy isn’t so simple as just taking a look at him. Sometimes it is, and there’s no denying Tiger’s physique has undergone an intense transformation.

So you’ve got the body. Then there’s all that has surfaced since Thanksgiving. The man who will kiss his wife and kid on the 18th green, then dip his wick in some random Vegas ink later that night has some character issues. Tie in his connection with Dr. What's His Face? in Canada, and the distance from A to PED is less a leap than a hop.

But again, I don’t know. I don’t find this photo to be the damning evidence so many are making it out to be.