McNair Not Most Popular Titan Ever
Tennessean newspaper columnist David Climer is impressionable.
How else can you explain this quote from him in his July 10 column regarding the deceased Steve McNair: "He was the most popular player to wear a Titans jersey."
Really? So popular in fact that the first time he (McNair) wore a Titans jersey in a real game he was booed for his poor play. Meanwhile, the top-selling NFL jersey that year -- in all of the NFL, mind you -- was Titans running back Eddie George's No. 27.
Not only did George send the cash registers clicking at a rate matched by no other NFL player back in 1999, he remained in the top ten clear up until the 2001-2002 season, after which injuries and less glitzy stats became the norm.
McNair was never even in the top 25, not even in the year or the year after he shared the league co-MVP award with Peyton Manning.
Eddie George is the most popular Titans player ever, not just across the country but in Nashville. Hasn't Climer noticed that what counts in this country is sex appeal, and that George had that over McNair hands down. In fact, Frank Wychek was likely more popular than McNair.
Would Climer have made the same statement any time before July 4?
-30-
Tell them how the weather was... -- Ernest Hemingway bryce_martin_1@Lycos.com
Friday, July 10, 2009
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Michael Jackson's Resting Place?
Yahoo headline: Jackson Resting Place Unknown
I think not. The place I am thinking of does not have resting as an option. Jackson should fit right in. With his squeals, he will need to add gnashing of teeth, and his Moonwalk will look more like a man who has been given a hot foot.
-30-
Yahoo headline: Jackson Resting Place Unknown
I think not. The place I am thinking of does not have resting as an option. Jackson should fit right in. With his squeals, he will need to add gnashing of teeth, and his Moonwalk will look more like a man who has been given a hot foot.
-30-
Monday, July 06, 2009
Athletes donate because it's a tax write-off
Fact: All pro athletes first joining the ranks -- pick your sport -- are told first off to establish a charity. It's a tax write-off you have to have to save money. Let Uncle Sam take $400,000 of your money, or start your own charity and he only gets $100,000. It all depends on your pay grade.
Plus, you never have to pay for gasoline again and there's a lot of free groceries and other things you can chalk up to costs for running the charity. And an even bigger plus, you can keep the wife happy by giving her no-good brother a job title -- say, transportation manager -- and a $36,000 per year salary as one of the charity officers.
Even Pacman Jones had a charity. You think he would have done it on his own if the primary beneficiary wasn't him?
Of course, the money that actually does go to charity goes to a good cause. I mean, isn't that what charity is all about? It's not as much about being charitable, however, as it is about using good business sense.
The media goes right along with it. How many times will we hear repeated how wonderful Steve McNair was with all his charity work. Or, how the newest player is starting his own charity. We have no real idea how wonderful they would be until it is really their money they are donating.
The fact is this: the charity racket that creates such "community-minded" athletes to "give back" is a tax dodge.
The athletes are getting money from you and me and trading it around in paperwork to give themselves a tax write-off that translates to more money for them. Athletes can benefit long after they are retired from their respective sport. Those links and money pipelines they have established can be their main source of income as they keep the charity racket going as long as possible. For those with no other skills, it can be their sole source of livelihood.
It's not just athletes, either. It's celebrities from all ilks who find themselves in a high income position.
How long must this charade go on? I, for one, am weary of the misreporting by the media and the overall subterfuge.
-30-
Fact: All pro athletes first joining the ranks -- pick your sport -- are told first off to establish a charity. It's a tax write-off you have to have to save money. Let Uncle Sam take $400,000 of your money, or start your own charity and he only gets $100,000. It all depends on your pay grade.
Plus, you never have to pay for gasoline again and there's a lot of free groceries and other things you can chalk up to costs for running the charity. And an even bigger plus, you can keep the wife happy by giving her no-good brother a job title -- say, transportation manager -- and a $36,000 per year salary as one of the charity officers.
Even Pacman Jones had a charity. You think he would have done it on his own if the primary beneficiary wasn't him?
Of course, the money that actually does go to charity goes to a good cause. I mean, isn't that what charity is all about? It's not as much about being charitable, however, as it is about using good business sense.
The media goes right along with it. How many times will we hear repeated how wonderful Steve McNair was with all his charity work. Or, how the newest player is starting his own charity. We have no real idea how wonderful they would be until it is really their money they are donating.
The fact is this: the charity racket that creates such "community-minded" athletes to "give back" is a tax dodge.
The athletes are getting money from you and me and trading it around in paperwork to give themselves a tax write-off that translates to more money for them. Athletes can benefit long after they are retired from their respective sport. Those links and money pipelines they have established can be their main source of income as they keep the charity racket going as long as possible. For those with no other skills, it can be their sole source of livelihood.
It's not just athletes, either. It's celebrities from all ilks who find themselves in a high income position.
How long must this charade go on? I, for one, am weary of the misreporting by the media and the overall subterfuge.
-30-
Sunday, July 05, 2009
How "up front" was Steve McNair?
With the sad death of Steve McNair, I keep hearing how "up front" he was as an individual, as evidenced by the way he never avoided the media even after a bad outing.
I recall those times. I cannot help but recall them since the media made it a point each time to remind us how "up front" McNair was with microphones stuck in his face after a contest where his poor play contributed greatly to a loss.
It was a little astonishing, that our media would actually praise someone for taking personal responsibility. And even more amazing that our local media would consider that a virtue of some sort and not something to be expected.
Even more astonishing was when McNair received a citation for driving drunk -- which he quite obviously was -- but that McNair was not so up front with that. Instead of confessing and taking his punishment, he chose to spend upteens of money to get off free on that one. How "up front" was that?
Our local media did not even raise an eyebrow. I guess it did not fit their profile of what "up front" means to them.
Was McNair killed in a fit of rage from a jilted suitor? Did McNair want out because the officer who arrested her for driving drunk just a couple of days earlier was the same one who received so much publicity for arresting McNair who had to pull out his get out of jail free card? Did McNair not want the publicity that might come?
The bigger question. If he had just pleaded guilty back then would this now have not been an issue and he would still be alive?
Forgive me if I'm up front in asking.
-30-
With the sad death of Steve McNair, I keep hearing how "up front" he was as an individual, as evidenced by the way he never avoided the media even after a bad outing.
I recall those times. I cannot help but recall them since the media made it a point each time to remind us how "up front" McNair was with microphones stuck in his face after a contest where his poor play contributed greatly to a loss.
It was a little astonishing, that our media would actually praise someone for taking personal responsibility. And even more amazing that our local media would consider that a virtue of some sort and not something to be expected.
Even more astonishing was when McNair received a citation for driving drunk -- which he quite obviously was -- but that McNair was not so up front with that. Instead of confessing and taking his punishment, he chose to spend upteens of money to get off free on that one. How "up front" was that?
Our local media did not even raise an eyebrow. I guess it did not fit their profile of what "up front" means to them.
Was McNair killed in a fit of rage from a jilted suitor? Did McNair want out because the officer who arrested her for driving drunk just a couple of days earlier was the same one who received so much publicity for arresting McNair who had to pull out his get out of jail free card? Did McNair not want the publicity that might come?
The bigger question. If he had just pleaded guilty back then would this now have not been an issue and he would still be alive?
Forgive me if I'm up front in asking.
-30-