Skip to main content

I'm "embarrassed" for Mike Ditka

Former Chicago Bears head coach, current ESPN NFL analyst, and favorite to be the lead actor in the film Grumpiest Old Men - Mike Ditka - decided to take his grumpiness to the Chicago Sun Times, where he wrote a bit concerning the St. Louis Rams players' pre-game protest this past Sunday. His piece went as follows:

"It's a shame this thing has come to this. The shame of it is, I'm not sure they care about Michael Brown or anything else. This was a reason to protest and to go out and loot. Is this the way to celebrate the memory of Michael Brown? Is this an excuse to be lawless? Somebody has to tell me that. I don't understand it. I understand what the Rams' take on this was. I'm embarrassed for the players more than anything. They want to take a political stand on this? Well, there are a lot of other things that have happened in our society that people have not stood up and disagreed about.

I wasn't in Ferguson. I don't know exactly what happened. But I know one thing: If we dismantle and limit the power of our policemen any more than we have already, then we're going to have a lot of problems in this country.

What do you do if someone pulls a gun on you or is robbing a store and you stop them? I don't want to hear about this hands-up crap. That's not what happened. I don't know what did happen, but I know that's not what happened. This policeman's life is ruined. Why? Because we have to break somebody down. Because we have to even out the game. I don't know. I don't get it. Maybe I'm just old fashioned."

This may be one of the dumbest comments I've read in a while, and believe me, I've read my fare share. Ditka opens by questioning the Rams players' true motives, saying he's embarrassed for them, and insinuating that they were celebrating unlawful behavior. Yet, through this muddled mess, he says, "I don't understand it." Obviously, but please continue anyway...

He then laid down the following statements over the next two paragraphs, which didn't make a bit of sense at all:

"I wasn't in Ferguson. I don't know exactly what happened. ... I don't want to hear this hands-up crap. That's not what happened. I don't know what did happen, but I know that's not what happened..."

Say what? So, let me get this straight, Coach Ditka, you don't know exactly what happened in Ferguson since you weren't there, but know Michael Brown didn't have his hands up, even though you don't know, but do? Is that right?

Here's what those comments sound like to me: "So, like, I wasn't like at the party and stuff, but like, I know what went on there, but I don't, but I do, you know what I'm saying? Are you going to finish that joint? Far out, man."

Ditka then closes his column with a loud thud, where the echo screams out the word, "ignoramus." He asks what one would do if someone pulled a gun on them. Good question, considering the fact the likes of Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, and Eric Garner weren't carrying guns, and the first and second in the group were shot and killed by one.

He then said, "The policeman's life is ruined. Why? Because we have to break somebody down. Because we have to even out the game. I don't know. I don't get it. Maybe I'm just old fashioned."

A policeman, who killed an unarmed man, has a ruined life because we feel the need to "break somebody down"? The policeman is still living, while the unarmed man he killed is no longer. Whose life was ruined again?

Person: A living policeman

Ditka: "His life is ruined!"


Person: An unarmed man that was killed by the policeman

Ditka: "Eh, whatever"


Mike Ditka may be embarrassed for the St. Louis Rams players for protesting and bringing awareness to police violence against blacks. As for me, I'm embarrassed for Mike Ditka. He was right about one thing in his column, though; he really doesn't get it.

http://deadspin.com/mike-ditka-says-hes-embarrassed-for-hands-up-dont-s-1666098031

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...