So what’s the deal with Tim Tebow? Is the Denver quarterback a miracle worker, inspirational role model or the most over-hyped NFL player since Brian Bosworth? Well, it depends on who you talk to. Most fans, even those east of the Rockies, love the guy and can’t wait to watch him work his magic each week. But if you read the sports pages, he is a lucky, muscle-bound dunce who is the tool of evil forces. Either way, the man is news. Sunday’s fourth quarter comeback and improbable overtime win against the Bears is just the latest in the growing legacy of his winning ways. Yes, a combination of two critical mistakes by Chicago running back Marion Barber, a soft prevent defense, and Mile High Stadium’s kicker-friendly clime had much to do with the victory, yet it almost defies logic that these and similar conditions seem to align themselves when Tebow takes the field late in games. So what’s not to like? Plenty, it seems, according to American media, typified by this snarky piece at Esquire ; a profanity-laced screed by Gary Andrew Poole titled, “How Can You Hate Tim Tebow?” The word most generally associated with him is “polarizing”; go ahead and Google it. Normally, a professional athlete is called polarizing because you either love or hate him and his team. But Tebow is fast becoming a fan favorite throughout the country, with his jersey leading the nation in sales and a best-selling autobiography on the market; so why the fuss? One media criticism is that he is simply not a good quarterback, that he is a product of hype and good fortune and certainly not worthy of the adulation bestowed on him by the public. Yet there have been many supposedly subpar QBs that have graced NFL fields through the years — as a lifelong Bears fan, I can particularly attest to this — who have not been very popular with the fans but were lauded by the sporting press for their own reasons. The “controversy” over Rush Limbaugh’s candid comments on Donavan McNabb is a great example of this. So what’s Tebow’s crime? It is a symptom of our growing national distaste for those who believe that their faith shouldn’t stop at the church doorstep. It is one thing when football players gather for a prayer circle after a game, or baseball players point to the sky; but to actually speak the name of Jesus and give him glory in interviews with the media — who take offense at any worship not directed by them — is far too much to take. After all, sports journalists are not too different from their brethren in the political realm, who have already met and worshipped their own messiah, Barack Obama. Of course it all started with the “controversial” pro-life Super Bowl ad he made with his mother in 2010. Imagine: a Heisman Trophy winner and two-time NCAA champ having the nerve to use his celebrity to promote a higher cause than himself; worse yet, he even admitted in public that he is a “virgin” who is saving himself for marriage. This is not the way an idol of millions of young men is supposed to comport himself in 21st Century America. Make no mistake about it: the media are afraid of Tim Tebow and those like him. They are in fear that, when given a chance to promote his Christian message, people might actually sit up and take notice; as happened in the 2009 BCS Championship game when 94 million people googled the Bible verse John 3:16 after viewing it on Tebow’s eye black. They cringe at each crazy win he engineers, fearful that, should his improbable journey lead to the Super Bowl, it won’t be merely a 60 second ad they’ll have to contend with. Near the end of the classic movie, Chariots of Fire , after Scottish missionary Eric Liddell refuses to run a heat on a Sunday at the 1924 Olympics and instead is entered in a different race, he is handed a note by a member of the American team: “It says in the Good Book, ‘He that honors me, I will honor.’ Good luck.” Much to the chagrin of Tebow’s media detractors, maybe luck has nothing to do with it.
See more here:
Tebowphobia
In a racial rant that is typical when considering the source, left-wing activist Mike Elk is drawing attention for his blast at those Penn State rioters because… wait for it… they’re white. Of course, all manner of press reports have observed that this is true of the Occupy Wall Street movement as well, as this report from Time — but one such — indicates. Mr. Elk, a labor guy writing from over there at the website of the 1% Michael Moore (whom Celebrity Networth says is worth $50 million…a subject which makes Moore very touchy indeed as seen here) seems bent on ignoring the racist heritage of labor unions. Not to mention that of the American left in general and the Democratic Party specifically, as noted in detail here . All of this racial baggage on the left breeds a continuous inability to see others as individual human beings. First, last and always the idea — the addiction? — is to group others by race and judge accordingly. Mr. Elk does not disappoint.
Continue reading here:
Racial Rant On Penn State From Labor Activist
The headline from the morning paper read: “Amy Winehouse Dead: Why Did No One Help Her?” I never heard Amy Winehouse perform, but I had certainly heard of Amy Winehouse. Her name was part of the incessant pop cultural din that makes up the raucous soundtrack of our daily lives. She was, for a time, ubiquitous on the Web, on the television tabloid shows, and in the celebrity magazines one idly thumbs through while waiting to get a tooth pulled — often a considerably less painful experience than reading the magazine. Unlike her countless fans, I found it impossible to get worked up over the self-inflicted demise of someone I knew of only from tabloid photographs — snapshots that featured a gaunt, sluttishly attired, heroin-chic young woman festooned with piercings and tattoos and usually falling down drunk . Nor did I long to place roses at the obligatory improvised shrine outside her London home, even though the Cult of Sentimentality demands we cloak her death as a terrible tragedy, instead of what it so obviously was — the consequence of a reckless and foolish existence. For some years, “Wino” as she was often called in the media, was the responsible parent’s nightmare, celebrated more for her degenerate lifestyle than for her questionable musical talent. (Following her death, a TMZ poll asked if Ms. Winehouse would be remembered as a great singer or as a junkie. Seventy percent responded: junkie.) How
Yesterday I noted a poll that showed Donald Trump at 10 percent in a national Republican presidential preference poll. He seems to take support about equally from Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and Ron Paul. Aside from Tim Pawlenty, they are the only candidates with noticeable pockets of support. So this has raised questions about whether a Trump campaign would be more than a publicity stunt. I’m skeptical for the following reasons. 1. How liquid is Trump? In determining how financially competitive Trump would be with Romney, the key figure isn’t net worth. It’s how much ready cash he has to spend on a presidential campaign. There are good reasons to question whether Trump is really in a position to drop that much dough on a presidential campaign. 2. How conservative is Trump? The last time he flirted with a presidential bid, Trump floated the idea of a wealth tax and criticized social conservatives. Since then, he has tacked to the right on a number of issues and talked about Obama’s birth certificate. Does this guy stand for anything. 3. Are Republicans ready to go the celebrity route? Conservatives have a habit of criticizing liberal celebrities for their political pronouncements — “Shut up and sing,” as Laura Ingraham puts it — and then latching on to any B-list celebrity who expresses a conservative opinion or endorses a Republican candidate. But Donald Trump isn’t Chuck Norris or Ted Nugent. He’s a Paris Hilton/Britney Spears-style celebrity. I’m not sure that would sit well with the Republican primary electorate. 4. Would he really want to disclose his assets and other financial information? Financial disclosure is often a major sticking point for for super-wealthy candidates and it has deterred celebrities from running for office before. If Trump somehow got elected, I doubt he would want to put everything into a blind trust. That didn’t work out so well for Jimmy Carter. 5. We’ve been down this road before. Jesse Ventura tried to recruit Trump to run for the Reform Party presidential nomination in 2000. Trump left the GOP the same day Pat Buchanan did in 1999, setting the stage for a contest where the Ventura faction of the party would back Trump and the Ross Perot faction would back Buchanan. The early indicators had Buchanan beating Trump, who consequently decided not to run. Both Ventura and Trump left the Reform Party. Buchanan and Trump eventually both returned to the GOP. Now if you can’t buy the nomination of a minor political party, which was by then in decline, and beat a candidate who was no longer at the peak of his popularity and was threatening to transform the Reformers from a centrist party into a right-wing one, it’s hard to see you being able to buy the Republican nomination. Much less beat established candidates who are in line with the GOP platform.
Go here to see the original:
Reasons for Trump Skepticism
The reason they call it the Web is that it catches more flies-by-night than the aluminum siding business. Some image, poignant in its charisma or its grotesquerie, captivates the public imagination and suddenly millions of otherwise productive citizens must stop whatever they are doing and see the kitty trampoline unto the roof or the pea which sprouted in a man’s lung. Some of these buzz arts are followed by buzzards, as 30-year careers are crushed by 30 seconds of crassness. This week’s target was Sarah Palin, the former governess of Alaska, if that’s the correct way to say female governor. What Palin did to cash in the wroth ire of retiring liberals nationwide was to roll her eyes. It wasn’t what she said, it wasn’t even how she said it, it was that she turned and gave a knowing look that amounted to a rolling of the eyes. Well, in the 1990s Bill Clinton promised us a revolution in optics and I guess we finally got one. The story, in case you have been occupying yourself with more momentous matters like Wall Street and Tiger Woods going down, is as follows. A lady, if that’s the word I’m looking for, was protesting the filming of Sarah’s documentary series. Her idea of a political banner was a horizontal horror about 100 feet wide (serving as a new sort of picket fence) bearing the legend: WORST GOVERNOR EVER. Sarah respectfully asked for a breakdown on the forensic method used to calibrate the degrees of worseness in the gubernatorial sweepstakes. The woman responded: “You walked out on your responsibility to serve your term when cash was waved in front of your face, and you left to become a celebrity.” Quoth Sarah in an excellent comeback, both witty riposte and logical rejoinder: “Oh, you wanted me to be your governor! I’m honored! Thank you!” That is as quick-on-your-political-feet as anyone this side of Dennis Miller, although Democrats dismiss it as a dumb broadside. Then she asked Our Lady of the Presumption what she did for a livelihood when she wasn’t stirring up a lively ‘hood. “A teacher.” At this point, Sarah makes a turn-to-the-right to glance toward someone off-camera. The left wing of the blogosphere has been ululating in outrage over the perception that her turn was not dexterous but sinister. She rolled her eyes at a teacher! At the whole teaching profession! What if she becomes a roll model?! Why, the optic nerve of that woman! It’s bad enough that she turns heads, now she’s rolling eyes! Sarah herself lost no time twittering back to these twits with the
