Wednesday, February 21, 2007
CHAMPIONS LEAGUE - MIXED RESULTS FOR SPANIARDS
Mixed night for the two Spanish teams that played tonightin the Champions League.FC BARCELONA lost at home 1-2 to LIVERPOOL FC& puts the qualification for the Q/F totally uphill for Barça,as the return game gives all the advantage to Liverpool.Barça went out attacking & looked like they were on their waywhen in the 13m DECO scored.However , the English side played 3 cards: team work, pressure&
Sport and the Meaning of Homosexuality
A commenter with the handle ChapelHeel makes an interesting point to the post about the reactions to John Amechi coming out. ChapelHeel tries to distinguish Tim Hardaway's anti-homosexual comments from Shavlik Randolph's statement that he was OK as long as Amechi (or anyone else) does not "bring your gayness of me."
ChapelHeel says, in part, as follows:
There are lots of people in America who are fine with gay people living a gay lifestyle, but do not want to be personally involved. Call it a middle ground of acceptance.
Let's assume Randolph is Jewish (based on his first name), and let's also assume he is heterosexual. Now suppose he said he was fine with Christians "as long as you don't bring you Christianity on me." Would we be upset? I doubt it.
So why do we get upset if we substitute "gayness" for Christianity when Randolph is heterosexual? Because it is the hot topic of the day.
I don't find his comment unenlightened. It is not as accepting as it could be, but it isn't non-acceptance. It is non-participation; and that's different.
This raises important issues about sexual orientation and the significance of having gay and straight professional athletes co-exist. And it also gets into some issues about the role of religion and sports, something I have been thinking about a great deal.
In the original post, I criticized Randolph's comment as incoherent because I really do not know what he meant by "bring your gayness on me." What is he talking about? As for suggesting it was unenlightened: I used that word not because Randolph's comment was antipathetic towards homosexuals; I was not using it in the political sense of intolerant towards gay people. In fact, if more people took the attitude of "gay people can do what they want and it does not affect me," we would all be better off.
But I think Randolph's statement is unenlightened in a different sense: Any meaning we can ascribe to it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of sexuality and sexual orientation. As I see it, he could have meant any of three things.
Possibility # 1: Do not make me gay by being around me--as if it were catching. I think most of us can agree that sexual orientation is not akin to a communicable disease that can be passed around the locker room--that being around someone who is gay can "make you gay."
Possibility # 2: Do not try to make me gay by converting me to your homosexual lifestyle. This one gets a bit closer to ChapelHeel's religion comparison. The problem is that sexual orientation is not a choice; it is a genetically hardwired predisposition as to who or what one is sexually attracted. So the idea that Amechi might "convert" Randolph misunderstands this fact about sexual orientation. True, this point is subject to some scientific, social, and religious controversy about the ability to "cure" homosexuality. And the anti-rights movement speaks of a homosexual agenda involving "recruiting" of new members, especially children. But I think the weight of science is on my side on this one.
Possibility # 3: Do not hit on me; I am not gay and am not interested in having sex with you so don't approach me. I call this the "Get Over Yourself" Problem: Do not assume that, just because the man standing next to you is gay, he wants to have sex with you; you aren't that good-looking. Just like we would not (or at least should not) assume that the heterosexual woman standing next to us wants to have sex. (Although the rules of sexual attraction are quite different with professional athletes, but that was the subject of Michael's post). If this is what Randolph meant, it is a bit presumptuous--and again reflects a misunderstanding of sexual orientation and what it means to be attracted to particular people.
Any of these three meanings is troubling in my view, for what it shows about Randolph's misunderstanding of homosexuality and sexual orientation.
But I do find this part of the issue interesting. While all the controversy has surrounded Hardaway's openly antipathetic comments, little attention has been paid to Randolph. But in many ways the worldview reflected in Randolph's comments is more troubling than the worldview reflected in Hardaway's. Randolph presents ideas that are fundamentally wrong about sexuality and sexual orientation, ideas that, if widely accepted, hold back the ability of openly gay athletes to exist and function in professional sport. But the ideas are presented in such benign, quasi-tolerant terms ("As long as I don't have to be involved, I'm OK with you doing what you want") that the danger of the underlying ideas gets buried. He is seen as being "accepting," as opposed to troublingly uninformed. At some level, rabid bigotry ("I hate gays") is easier to confront and less harmful.
Also, I take issue with ChapelHeel's suggestion that if a Jewish athlete (and my quick check says Randolph is not Jewish. And trust me: We are so starved for Jewish sports stars that we keep a very close watch on these things) requested that a Christian teammate "not bring his Christianity on me" we would not be upset. Actually, there would be an uproar from the Christian Right and the people on Fox News like you would not believe. The controversy over prayer at football games is precisely because non-Christian athletes and fans seek to avoid the bringing of Christianity on them--how is that working out? This is a separate and intriguing subject that I would like to discuss more in the future.
Finally, a personal note to ChapelHeel. Judging by the handle, I am guessing you are a UNC fan. I commend the fact that you declined to trash, and in fact defended well, a Dukie. That is enlightened.
ChapelHeel says, in part, as follows:
There are lots of people in America who are fine with gay people living a gay lifestyle, but do not want to be personally involved. Call it a middle ground of acceptance.
Let's assume Randolph is Jewish (based on his first name), and let's also assume he is heterosexual. Now suppose he said he was fine with Christians "as long as you don't bring you Christianity on me." Would we be upset? I doubt it.
So why do we get upset if we substitute "gayness" for Christianity when Randolph is heterosexual? Because it is the hot topic of the day.
I don't find his comment unenlightened. It is not as accepting as it could be, but it isn't non-acceptance. It is non-participation; and that's different.
This raises important issues about sexual orientation and the significance of having gay and straight professional athletes co-exist. And it also gets into some issues about the role of religion and sports, something I have been thinking about a great deal.
In the original post, I criticized Randolph's comment as incoherent because I really do not know what he meant by "bring your gayness on me." What is he talking about? As for suggesting it was unenlightened: I used that word not because Randolph's comment was antipathetic towards homosexuals; I was not using it in the political sense of intolerant towards gay people. In fact, if more people took the attitude of "gay people can do what they want and it does not affect me," we would all be better off.
But I think Randolph's statement is unenlightened in a different sense: Any meaning we can ascribe to it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of sexuality and sexual orientation. As I see it, he could have meant any of three things.
Possibility # 1: Do not make me gay by being around me--as if it were catching. I think most of us can agree that sexual orientation is not akin to a communicable disease that can be passed around the locker room--that being around someone who is gay can "make you gay."
Possibility # 2: Do not try to make me gay by converting me to your homosexual lifestyle. This one gets a bit closer to ChapelHeel's religion comparison. The problem is that sexual orientation is not a choice; it is a genetically hardwired predisposition as to who or what one is sexually attracted. So the idea that Amechi might "convert" Randolph misunderstands this fact about sexual orientation. True, this point is subject to some scientific, social, and religious controversy about the ability to "cure" homosexuality. And the anti-rights movement speaks of a homosexual agenda involving "recruiting" of new members, especially children. But I think the weight of science is on my side on this one.
Possibility # 3: Do not hit on me; I am not gay and am not interested in having sex with you so don't approach me. I call this the "Get Over Yourself" Problem: Do not assume that, just because the man standing next to you is gay, he wants to have sex with you; you aren't that good-looking. Just like we would not (or at least should not) assume that the heterosexual woman standing next to us wants to have sex. (Although the rules of sexual attraction are quite different with professional athletes, but that was the subject of Michael's post). If this is what Randolph meant, it is a bit presumptuous--and again reflects a misunderstanding of sexual orientation and what it means to be attracted to particular people.
Any of these three meanings is troubling in my view, for what it shows about Randolph's misunderstanding of homosexuality and sexual orientation.
But I do find this part of the issue interesting. While all the controversy has surrounded Hardaway's openly antipathetic comments, little attention has been paid to Randolph. But in many ways the worldview reflected in Randolph's comments is more troubling than the worldview reflected in Hardaway's. Randolph presents ideas that are fundamentally wrong about sexuality and sexual orientation, ideas that, if widely accepted, hold back the ability of openly gay athletes to exist and function in professional sport. But the ideas are presented in such benign, quasi-tolerant terms ("As long as I don't have to be involved, I'm OK with you doing what you want") that the danger of the underlying ideas gets buried. He is seen as being "accepting," as opposed to troublingly uninformed. At some level, rabid bigotry ("I hate gays") is easier to confront and less harmful.
Also, I take issue with ChapelHeel's suggestion that if a Jewish athlete (and my quick check says Randolph is not Jewish. And trust me: We are so starved for Jewish sports stars that we keep a very close watch on these things) requested that a Christian teammate "not bring his Christianity on me" we would not be upset. Actually, there would be an uproar from the Christian Right and the people on Fox News like you would not believe. The controversy over prayer at football games is precisely because non-Christian athletes and fans seek to avoid the bringing of Christianity on them--how is that working out? This is a separate and intriguing subject that I would like to discuss more in the future.
Finally, a personal note to ChapelHeel. Judging by the handle, I am guessing you are a UNC fan. I commend the fact that you declined to trash, and in fact defended well, a Dukie. That is enlightened.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Fantasy Baseball Ranking: Catchers
There's a good chance that eventually I will group some positions together, but for now let's just look exclusively at the Catchers. For brevity's sake, I'll just give my top 15 with a short comment for each. Feel free to interject at any time (by leaving a comment, or even an email, if I offend you too much).1. Joe Mauer (MIN) - Quite simply, Mauer is the best catcher in the MLB. He was the MLB batting champ last season, and should just be coming into his own as far as power is concerned. He had 36 2B and 13 HR, and both of those should go up as he gets closer to his prime. He's also the #3 hitter in the order, meaning plenty of chances to get RBI or get knocked in by Justin Morneau and Mike Cuddyer. And if all of that is not enough, Ron Gardenhire frequently makes Mauer the DH on the days he's not catching. That's really good for fantasy purposes.
2. Victor Martinez (CLE) - I feel Mauer is the #1 fantasy catcher, but if you like Martinez more, I can't argue too much. At this point he doesn't get on base as much as Mauer, but maybe has a slight, slight power edge. Another thing you have to like with Martinez is that he sucks defensively... meaning the Indians will play him more at 1B, which helps to stop wear and tear.
3. Brian McCann (ATL) - McCann was pretty awesome last year, batting .333 while hitting for very good power (24 HR). He's like 1C for fantasy catching purposes... you can't go wrong with Mauer, Martinez, or McCann, because both are excellent and are young enough that they could be even better this year.
4. Kenji Johjima (SEA) - Johjima quietly put together a nice rookie campaign last season, batting .291 with 44 XBH and 76 RBI. Now that he's more acclimated to the MLB, he should be even better in year 2.
5. Mike Piazza (OAK) - Piazza is obviously not the hitter he used to be, but that's ok. He should be doing a lot of DHing in Oak-town, which will be great since he still has catcher eligibility. He hit .283 with 22 HR last year in 400 ABs in an extreme pitcher's park in a pitcher's league. People are overlooking him some because of his age, but I think he'll be excellent this year.
6. Ivan Rodriguez (DET) - He's another guy that's getting older, but he did hit .300 once again last season. Also, with guys like Magglio Ordonez and the extremely underrated Carlos Guillen near him in the lineup, he should be able to provide another solid season of production.
7. Ramon Hernandez (BAL) - Hernandez adapted very well to Baltimore last season, with 23 HR, 91 RBI, and a solid .275 AVG. With the lineup around him and the fact the hitter's ballpark in Baltimore, good things should again be in store.
8. Michael Barrett (CHIN) - Barrett hit over .300 last year with 16 HR, a respectable amount. With some improvements to the Cubs offense (overrated as Soriano may be), it's not inconceivable to see a little boost for Barrett, which puts him definitely in the top 10.
9. Jorge Posada (NYY) - Posada has been around seemingly forever, but he's still productive for now. He hit 23 HR last year and racked up 93 RBI. He was much better in 2006 than 2005, so we'll see if that's just a one-year final gasp, or if he's still a top 5 catcher. I'm betting somewhere in between.
10. AJ Pierzynski (CHIA) - I feel like I'm repeating myself here... near .300 average for Pierzynski, mid-teens in HR, and mid twenties for doubles. He should also get solid RBI opportunities because there are some superb hitters in front of him in the Sox lineup.
11. Russell Martin (LAD) - Martin had a very nice rookie year for the Dodgers, with 26 2B, 65 R, and 65 RBI in only 121 games. Barring a sophomore slump, he could be a nice sleeper here.
12. Paul Lo Duca (NYM) - I still think Lo Duca is a little overrated, but he hit for a high average, had a good amount of doubles, and scored a lot of runs due to batting 2nd in a good lineup. I suspect that .318 average will drop some, but he sure does have a lot of protection in that lineup.
13. Jason Varitek (BOS) - Varitek may be a great gamecaller, but he was really bad at the plate last season. He only batted .238 and his power numbers were down. He was battling some injuries, so I'm sure that contributed, but he needs to bounce back offensively.
14. Johnny Estrada (MIL) - Estrada's always been a guy to hit for a pretty good average and get in the mid-20s in doubles. We pretty much know what to expect from him.
15. Javy Lopez (COL) - I know his numbers from last year aren't all that inspiring, but playing half your games in Coors Field tends to be a big help to offensive stats.
What changes would you make to these rankings?
REAL MADRID DEFEAT BAYERN MUNICH WITH A SENSE THAT IT WAS ALL AN ILLUSION
REAL MADRID won 3-2 against BAYERN MUNICH in a matchthat left you wondering which of the two was worst. The 1º halfwas dominanted by Real with nice play & gave the impressionthat the good old days were rolling back.RAUL GONZALEZ - pictured below - added to the all time bestEuropean Cup goal scorer tally , with two goals in the 09m & the27m.LUCIO, 5mins earlier, sent a shiver through the crowdwith
Tuesday Sports Law Panel at Western Michigan University
On Tuesday, February 27 (next Tuesday), Rick, Bob McCormick (MSU Law) and I will be doing a panel on Sports Law for the undergraduate pre-law society at Western Michigan University. The event will be from 6:30-7:30 in Bernhard Center, Room 209 (PLEASE NOTE: UPDATED LOCATION), and we are planning to address the general topic of amateruism, pay, and unionization in college sports. Anyone in the Kalamazoo neighborhood, please feel free to attend since the event is open to the public.
Dice-K, Beer, and the Feds
A follow-up to Michael's post about Red Sox pitcher Daisuke Matsuzaka taking a sip of beer in a Japanese-language television ad running only in Japan. Michael focused more on the ethics of the ad and of the close ties between professional sports and alcohol. He suggests (as I believe to be the case) the the prohibition on depicting someone drinking alcohol on television is a voluntary network regulation, not a requirement from the FCC or the FTC or other federal regulatory agency.
Well, maybe not . . .
Ilya Somin of the Volokh Conspiracy discusses here the fact that the Alcohol Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau ("ATTB") might be contemplating future punitive action against Dice-K because the ad violates its regulations prohibiting ads depicting athletes consuming (or about to consume) alcohol prior to or during competition or suggesting that drinking alcohol enhances health or athletic prowess.
Ilya quite rightly slams this as "inane overregulation." Putting to one side any First Amendment concerns (either under current doctrine or what the doctrine ought to be): The ad is not running in the United States or in a language that most people in the United States speak or understand. The federal government, not content with telling U.S. citizens what images they can see, now want to tell the people of Japan what images they can see.
Prediction: Any penalty imposed (and it remains a Big IF whether the ATTB will actually do anything) will be reversed because such extra-territorial application of U.S. law is disfavored.
Well, maybe not . . .
Ilya Somin of the Volokh Conspiracy discusses here the fact that the Alcohol Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau ("ATTB") might be contemplating future punitive action against Dice-K because the ad violates its regulations prohibiting ads depicting athletes consuming (or about to consume) alcohol prior to or during competition or suggesting that drinking alcohol enhances health or athletic prowess.
Ilya quite rightly slams this as "inane overregulation." Putting to one side any First Amendment concerns (either under current doctrine or what the doctrine ought to be): The ad is not running in the United States or in a language that most people in the United States speak or understand. The federal government, not content with telling U.S. citizens what images they can see, now want to tell the people of Japan what images they can see.
Prediction: Any penalty imposed (and it remains a Big IF whether the ATTB will actually do anything) will be reversed because such extra-territorial application of U.S. law is disfavored.
CHAMPIONS LEAGUE. PREVIEWS OF FC BARCELONA & VALENCIA CF MATCHES.
SFS has already given a preview to tonights big clashbetween Real Madrid & Bayern Munich on the below post.But TOMORROW, we have 2 great matches, just as intense& exciting to look forward to & should have millions ofpeople glued to their TV sets.Current European Cup Champions, FC BARCELONA, meetprevious Champions LIVERPOOL at "Camp Nou" & in frontof 100,000 spectatorsThe possible line ups are
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)