Thursday, June 28, 2007
Say something, anything, just say something
Dan takes on an easy target, Stoneham's decision to cut athletics, and manages to say nothing. He offers up a bunch of platitudes and quotations from those affected. But as how to fix things? Dan is silent. That's great. Really exploring the issue. I think everyone can agree that having high school sports is good. Tell me how to fix the problem.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
You guys are unbelievable. Can't you get a life? He's a sports columninst, not the President. So what if he doesn't say anything new, or is trite, or predictable. Sports is supposed to be something to be enjoyed away from the real world. Why don't all of you use your time and energy to focus on someone like Bush, who deserves to be pilloried for his actions. As Ted Sarandis would say, WOW!
And how many of you have had a daughter stricken with cancer, as he has? Yeah, thought so.
I'll now await the attacks.
Sorry Mrs. Shaughnessy. You're right: No one should criticize any public figure below the rank of U.S. President. Maybe Dan should take your advice ... just saying.
Btw: I'm a cancer survivor, so you'll have to find another card to play.
Annon, I sort of agree with you but you take your arguement way too far. I really don't see the point of this site. It's not really that funny, and it won't ever get the guy fired if his own actions haven't already.
But, to say that the people of this site have no lives?. That is just a bullshit personal attack that follows the logic of "they post stuff critizing a sports collumnist online, ergo, they have no lives" .That you had the time to go onto your computer and read a blog that critizes CHB shows that you are a complete and total hypocrit. If you don't think anyone besides the president should have their faults exemplified , then what the hell are you doing here?
And what the fuck does his duaghter having cancer have to do with his skill as a newspaper collumnist?
Like I said, here comes the attacks.
I was referred to it from a Phoenix article about CHB and I had to see what all the crying was about.
In moments away from the real world, I would enjoy sports a lot more if there were talented writers who cared about what happens on the field instead of attacking the fans and players.
And how many of you have had a daughter stricken with cancer, as he has? Yeah, thought so.
This is dumber than anything OB has ever written.
"He's a sports columninst [sic], not the President."
When the President starts writing a sports column, I will personally start my own "George W. Bush Watch" blog. Who knows? He might buy the Rangers again after his term is up.
And since when does having a kid with cancer give you free reign to be a egotistical douche who hates the professional sports teams in his city? I feel sorry for him and his daughter but I never attack the man personally.
Just because you say something stupid then predict people will point out its stupidity doesn't mean that you are right. In this case it was a message from your conscious trying to tell you that you are an idiot.
And again, what the fuck does the fact that his daughter had cancer a few years back have to do with anything?
What the hell is wrong with critiquing someone who's job is to serve others? (I know it's not like being someone that discusses sports is something particularly important in the larger relm of things, but CHB's job is to be an accurate, enteraining writer.) To tell those on this site to get a life is arrogant and patronzing. I don't think (well I hope they don't at least) that the authors of the site approach this as a moral war against the mediocre writing of Dan Shaughnessy
that they devote 100% of there time to. I'm fairly confident that most of these people have lives, even though they somehow manage to cram in a whopping 5 minutes to sit down and use a computer.
Shank could have asked questions like, "How much budgetary bloat and public hackery is there in Stoneham? How much is that costing the town?" or "Are the teachers unions costing the town too much?" (the answer is yes, BTW)
anonymous #1, Bush deserves to be pilloried for his actions? For winning a war against Islamo-Arab imperialism? For cutting taxes and thus energizing the ecnonomy beyond even what the 1990s had? If you want to pillory someone, attack Liveshot Kerry, Fat Teddy, Hillary Milhous Clinton, Broadway Joe Wilson, or Al Franken-stein.
Congratulations!!!
This is easily the most idiotic post in the long list of moronic postings we have seen on this site.
I'm not looking to the sports pages for an analysis of municipal finance.
But the sports page is the perfect place to discuss the impact of losing something that is as elemental to the high school experience as the athletic program. A variety of perspectives are presented, which is appropriate.
It's not up to sports columnists to "fix the problem," nor is it up to sports columnists to analyze the municipal government of the Town of Stoneham to determine if it is spending money efficiently.
Perhaps, though, by shining light on what the loss of high school sports means to the community -- not just the jocks -- Stoneham's leaders and the community will recognize their obligation to find a way to keep a high school athletic program going.
Threats to abolish this or that sport are routine when cities and towns debate Proposition 2 1/2 exemptions and overrides. It's usually a lot of political posturing.
Here, however, we have a town which has voted to wipe out the entire program. A column assessing what it means to the kids, the parents and the town is appropriate, necessary and may well have more impact than a thousand columns complaining of "hacks."
Tiger Burns would be proud.
"It's not up to sports columnists to "fix the problem," nor is it up to sports columnists to analyze the municipal government of the Town of Stoneham to determine if it is spending money efficiently."
I agree with OB on this. Shank's column doesn't offer any solutions to Stoneham's problem but doesn't need to. Unless he's a member of the Stoneham town council there is little he can do but report the facts and show us the impact of the town's decision.
Sports columnists feel free to offer up their own opinions on on drug policy, economics, race relations yet Dan can't dig a little deeper and talk to some people with opinions?
And I suspect monkeesfan is right. The town government is probably using sports to extort money from the taxpayers because all the things Dan wrote is true and people won't want to be part of a town without sports. The taxpayers will give in because it is "for the children."
And Dan played into the town's strategy by talking about the lossand telling the residents to "do the right thing" without questioning the decision to cut sports.
What's the right thing? More money? Maybe. Recalling the school board or selectmen? Maybe. I think he suggested it's up to the people of Stoneham, but they ought to give soem serious thought to how important it is.
What's the right thing?
That's my point. Dan doesn't offer any solution. And the way the column reads, he is telling them to pony up.
High School sports are nothing more than a way for the stupid, brutish members of our society to gain power over the intelligent, and their superiority complex is continued by college and professional sports. High School athletes would not make it past 10th grade if it weren't for coaches and administrators pushing them through classes they can't pass at all.
Here's to Stoneham, for putting these jocks into the places they belong: bagging my frickin' groceries.
I agree with you anonymous, if someone is good at sports they are automatically dumber than some skinny nerd. The kids that play football at Harvard, the kids that excel at sports to go along with 4.0 gpas in the classroom, they are all a bunch thugs looking to beat the shit outta some poor geek. High school athletes are all a bunch robotic idiots that can throw and run but suck when it comes to academics.
Those people at Stoneham were absolutely correct for "putting these jocks into the places they belong." If they don't have something to help time management skills and teach responsibility, then maybe they won't actually go anywhere in life! Then you can post stuff on the internet calling all jocks idiots without sounding completely full of shit and bitter.
objectivebruce - What is the right thing? For Stoneham to cut hackery and bureaucratic bloat and to open up its budgetary practices to market forces.
Would it be possible to omit references to cancer and current or former cancer patients if the reference doesn't specifically apply to the subject under discussion? Cancer is a horrible, debilitating disease in some of its more lethal forms. At best, it is life altering; at worst, it is fatal. I have stage four (non-curable) gastric cancer and must attend to that problem via chemotherapy, radiology, diets, and a passel of "counter effect" medications that often makes it difficult to read, watch television or hold a coherent conversation. I come to blog sites to be entertained and informed, not to see the name of a debilitating disease bandied around in a parry, thrust, jab manner that lends little if anything to the conversation. Thank you
Anon, I see your point and feel for you. But I think it's only fair to note that "cancer" has a lot of definitions, the second of which is: "any evil condition or thing that spreads destructively; blight."
The disease is horrible. But it doesn't have exclusive rights to the word.
What hackery and budgetary bloat exist in Stoneham?
What do "market forces" have to do with budgeting practices for a Massachusetts municipal entity?
You might want to try to understand what you're talking about before spouting meaningless right-wing cliches.
OB, "what hackery and budgetary bloat exist in Stoneham?" That they're targeting school sports programs for budget cuts shows their hackery and bloat for all to see - when was the last time the hacks willingly cut their own budgetary bloat for the good of the town? Plus, it shows how little creative thinking goes into budget issues - where is there any thinking outside the box here?
"What do market forces have to do with budgeting practices?" Everything - bringing in market forces makes the municipal entity have to handle their finances more smartly and more creatively, because the market punishes failure - something the hackerama refuses to understand.
You might want to try to understand the real world, Bruce, before you spout off about what you have no clue about - namely everything.
Shank should have made the point about Stoneham's economic ineptitude when he wrote about their budget axe toward school sports.
What incoherent gibberish.
I still haven't heard exactly what kind of hackery and budgetary blot exist in Stoneham. The town has an open town meeting form of government, so all the information is public record.
C'mon, name one hack in the town. Name one bloated expenditure and explain why it is "bloated."
Explain how "market forces," presumably something out of Adam Smith, "makes the municipal entity have to handle their finances more smartly and more creatively." For example, how do "market forces" reduce what a town has to pay for heating oil (or anything else bought under the competitive billign laws?).
If you're going to worship at the shrine of right wing kookdom, you might try to read something that'll give you some concept of what you're talking about it.
There's more to life than Howie Carr columns, son.
Bruce, it's called reality. That you haven't seen hackery and budgetary bloat in Stoneham is because you're not looking for it. They targeted school sports because they don't want to touch their own bloat and hackery. It's the SOP of these towns when they try to force-feed Prop 2.5 overrides and lose - they want the overrides so they can keep the hackerama with nobody noticing.
Market forces introduce competition, which reduces prices and increases efficiency. There has never been any market forces introduced into municipal budgetary processes, hence their constant inefficiency and waste - failure is never punished.
There's more to life than your Dakota From Braintree imitation, Bruce.
Apparently answering questions is something they don't do at Right Wing U.
The reason you haven't given a single example of bloat or "hackerama" in Stoneham is that you can't. You don't know what you're talking about, you have no idea what the town of Stoneham spends per year, never mind whether any particular line item in the budget is "bloated."
Next you'll probably try to tell me that "market forces" can get the rubbish picked up or provide police protection (perhaps you'd like a private police force. What a swell idea that would be. No standards set by the government, since that would be interference with the "market forces." Let the market decide whether a person's civil rights are being violated. Let's have a bunch of NRA nutcases running around proposing to provide police protection for less.)
Again where is the inefficiency and waste in this town? It may exist, but so far you can't identify anything, just parroting the inanities of your idol as he uses listener comments to fill out yet another column.
Atta boy, OB!
Bring Howie Carr into it!
Lash out blindly at the right wing!
Ask not what you can do for your constituency,
ask what can your constituency can do for you!
And your relatives!
Take care,
Tim
OB:
Are you a State Rep?
C'mon big guy, tell us!
Take care,
Tim
Bruce, we answered your questions so you can stop asking. I don't need to cite examples of the obvious - hackerama in Stoneham et al. You need to cite proof that it isn't there. You see it there if you look.
Introduce market forces into these situations - they work, Bruce. You cannot cite any evidence to the contrary.
Post a Comment