Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Quick Hits: Volume LIV

-In the motif of a certain Mitch Berg query, I ask this: If a Christian affirms his/her faith while in the woods and no one is there to hear it, is it still "hate speech?"

Actor Kirk Cameron, a devout Christian, appeared on Tuesday's Today show, probably to promote his latest film Monumental. But what should have been a surprise to no one (least of all, Cameron himself), host Ann Curry shot rapid fire questions at the actor regarding his comments about homosexual being "unnatural."

"Many people are suggesting that this is hate speech. Are you encouraging people to feel hate towards gay people?"

"Do you feel – do you feel any responsibility saying words like that, that might encourage people to feel that it's okay to treat – mistreat gay people?"

"Why do you say things like this that you know are going to cause people to push back? Why do you even talk about it, then? Because this is not the first time you've been asked about it. It's not the first time you've made comments that have caused people a lot of alarm."

You get the idea. By the way, if Christians are mistreated because of the way journalists like Curry portray them, does Curry herself feel any responsibility?

-I have to say that I am pretty disappointed in the folks who decided to politicize the class trip of Malia Obama, the elder daughter of President and Mrs. Obama. Naturally the more prolific talking point has been how so many everyday American's are struggling to make ends meet while the President's daughter takes an exotic Mexican vacation surrounded by 25 Secret Service agents, all on the taxpayers' dime.

First, it's protocol for a President's spouse and children to receive Secret Service protection wherever they go. So it seems rather foolish to kvetch about such a thing.

Secondly, this violates one of the unwritten rules of reporting on a First Family by shining the light on a President's kid. As such, the White House confirmed Tuesday that they worked to scrub any stories related to Malia's trip. I have zero problem with that, especially when you consider this little tidbit pointed out by David "Iowahawk" Burge: "I don't blame the President for keeping his daughter's trip to Mexico quiet. For God's sake, there are drug lords there with American guns!"

-A mere two weeks after being released by the Indianapolis Colts, quarterback Peyton Manning signed a 5-year, $96 million contract with the Denver Broncos.

There's no doubt Manning will be a first ballot Hall of Famer, and I don't see him as a guy who's just trying to "hang on" a la Johnny Unitas with the Chargers or Joe Namath with the Rams. In fact, if Manning fulfills the entire five years of his Broncos contract, he needs to average 3,402 yards passing and 22 touchdowns per season to usurp Brett Favre as the all-time leader in both categories. If indeed Manning is as healthy as everyone seems to believe, those records are very attainable.

But for some reason I was bothered by the notion that Manning will wear jersey number 18 (the number he's worn his entire NFL career), despite the fact it had been retired by the Denver Broncos organization. But as Manning was close to signing with Denver it was revealed that Frank Tripucka, who wore number 18 for the Broncos in the early '60s, would have no issue with the number being "un-retired." When I heard that, I assumed Manning would respectfully decline. After all, I know of no other players who have a more genuine respect for NFL tradition and its history. However, to my surprise, Manning indulged the 84-year old Tripucka by agreeing to wear 18.

Look, I'm not going to make a big deal about this by implying it will somehow tarnish Manning's legacy (it won't). But I firmly believe that if Len Dawson had offered to "un-retire" his number 16 when Joe Montana went to play for the Kansas City Chiefs in 1993, Montana would have graciously turned down said offer. Just sayin'....


No comments: