Old news, but pretty bad

So remember last week when stations like CNN were reporting that Nancy Pelosi was suggesting that President Bush not attend the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics? That same day, ESPN was reporting that Nancy Pelosi was advocating the boycott of the Olympics.

That's right, if you had watched CNN on Wednesday Morning you probably saw the former story, however, if you were listening to Mike and Mike in the morning, you heard Golic and Greenberg talking about how it would be unfair to forbid athletes from participating in the Olympics simply because of China's government. Golic then proceeded to go on a self-indulgent rant about how athletics transcends politics and about how athletes have to work day and night to get to the Olympics and tells us that an athlete should only boycott if he personally cared about Tibet. Golic expressed the opinion that Pelosi's suggestion fails to take into account an athlete's sacrifice.

Now, I know ESPN doesn't have a huge fact-checking budget. They are just a tiny little network trying to scrape by in today's fast-paced world. I assume that it's just a mom and pop operation (run by Ma and Pa Essen-Penn). BUT FUCKING HELL, didn't their producer have CNN on or something so that he could see the actual story and whisper in Greenberg's earpiece, "hey Mike, tell Golic to shut up or I won't have his usual two dozen low-carb doughnuts waiting for him after the show." I don't know how you can get a story this wrong when it is being reported correctly on the major news networks, let alone rant for several minutes about it.

Pelosi was calling for the President to stay home from the opening ceremony. Have you ever seen one of those opening ceremonies? Someone inspirational says a couple of words, people parade by with flags, China gets to show how awesome they are, and then they light the flame with the other flame. The President is going to fall asleep anyway, does any athlete in their right mind care if Bush is watching the pomp and circumstance in the arena as opposed to back at some hotel?

OH BUT GOLIC IS AN ATHLETE. He understands this shit better than Nancy Pelosi and EVERY MAJOR NEWS ORGANIZATION IN THE WORLD. Nice job, fat ass.

This one makes me Smile a little Bit

Scouts Inc decided to take their decisive man power and knowledge and apply it towards a good cause: subjectively ranking all twelve playoff coaches.

Just because that wasn't nearly enough, no, they had to drop this gem:

4. Washington Redskins
Joe Gibbs is one of the best coaches of all time and will eventually be in the Hall of Fame

One problem. Joe Gibbs has been in the Hall of Fame. For eleven years.

Thats why they play the games, fool! (Version One of Many)

Paul Zimmerman is back!

Wonderful. I linked you as a reference to what I'm going to do, but before I start, let me make it loud and clear that no sane person should click that link. Trust me, I know less about football now than I did before I started reading that crap.

Anyway, Dr. Z spends a lot of time rambling, but his point can be reasonably inferred. Randy Moss should not be enshrined in Canton. Writes Zimmerman:

I promise you this, Gary. As long as I'm a selector, the Canton Highway will be a very difficult road for Moss. I don't care how many great years he gives the Patriots. The guy's a dog, and there are too many people who spent years of sacrifice without getting a sniff from the Hall.

Wonderful. Dr Z, if that is your real name, would you please tell us why you think his career with New England (i.e. the second half of his career) should have no barring on his HOF credentials. Why have you come to a decision so early? Any reason?

Also, Michael Irvin was perhaps the biggest "dog" in NFL History, and he got your vote year after year for HOF consideration.

Michael Irvin (159 Games):
750 Receptions
11904 Yards

Randy Moss (138 games adjusted proportionally to 159 games and rounded):
779 Receptions
12328 Yards

Randy Moss will likely play much longer than Michael Irvin did.

Look, my assessment of Moss is that he won't be anything insanely special in NE. He has diminishing physical skills and has proven over a large sample size that his effort level is determined by factors not attributable to Randy Moss.

But already, Moss has a very solid case for the HOF. If he exceeds expectations in New England, is there really anyway that you can not vote this guy in first ballot? I mean, Dr. Z thought Irvin should be in, so obviously citing Moss' character against him is a gianormous double standard of epic proportions.

Then again, this is the same guy who thinks that Art Monk, a man who retired as the most prolific receiver in NFL History (by the metric of receptions) should not be inducted into Canton. I can't stress this enough. A man who thinks that one of the greatest receivers ever to play should not be in the hall has a vote for the hall of fame. Old and senile doesn't quite describe this. Dustybakerdumb doesn't quite describe this. This is downright and utterly senseless.

And that, in a nutshell, is why they play the games. So dudes like Dr. Z come out looking completely and utterly clueless time and time again.

Actually, there are a bunch of other reasons the games are played, but honestly, is that not the most significant one?