An Historic Day in Major League Sports

On Saturday, President Obama called to congratulate new NFL draftee Michael Sam.  It was an historic event; in fact, I can find no news stories about a Presidential phone call to any NFL draft pick prior to this.  (The President customarily congratulates winners of the Super Bowl.)  So Michael Sam must be an extraordinary athlete.

Reading the news stories about Michael Sam, we see that he was drafted … 249th?  In the seventh round?  The 8th to the last player to be drafted?  That he utterly failed to impress NFL talent scouts?

What gives?

Oh, I see it now – he is openly gay.  Makes perfect sense.  An athlete whose NFL draft status would never have made news had he been straight (or better yet, white and straight) suddenly merits national headlines for two days and a special congratulatory phone call from Barack Obama, all because of his sexual orientation.

Remind me again why gays and lesbians still routinely claim that they are the victims of systemic oppression …

Of course now that Sam has been drafted (surely under pressure by the NFL, to avoid a guaranteed shit-storm from the LGBT mafia) the question is, how will he play?  Can he be judged solely on his merits as a player, or will he always be a martyr for the LGBT cause, with the cloud of “homophobia” hanging over every decision that the St. Louis Rams or the NFL make about him?  Is it good for the NFL if a player’s sexual orientation ends up being the primary factor in determining his rank in the team’s depth chart, or whether the team decides to retain him for another season?

And finally, what do we make of the fact that mocking Tim Tebow was all the rage during the past three years, but disparaging Michael Sam will earn you a rebuke from your team, a fine, and a stint in sensitivity training?

 

Shortlink:

Posted by on May 12, 2014.
Filed under Culture, Sports.
Tagged with: .


You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • Paul Hooson

    It was an important first in the NFL. At one time it was groundbreaking for a sports team to pick a Black. Now, this breaks down another barrier to full citizenship for all citizens. It’s a step forward for society. A great talented player was chosen for his ability, and not passed over for his sexuality.

    America hasn’t always been the land of equality as it claims. My great grandfather survived famine in Ireland to become a Canadian because many U.S. cities either had city ordinances or posted signs denying Irish a place to live or a job. Canada treated the Irish far better than the U.S. – Some daily newspapers in the United States ran drawings of Irish made to look like monsters, drunks or depraved criminals to help create a climate of hate against the Irish. – So the breakdown of all barriers against citizens is to be welcomed and applauded.

    Here’s how one newspaper cartoon pictured both Blacks and Irish at one point in history, where both groups faced both great poverty as well as discrimination in a mostly Protestant and White America. Gay Americans are now the latest group of discriminated Americans to seek equality in employment and under the law.

    • jim_m

      The difference is that you cannot choose you sex, your race or your ethnicity. As of today there is no convincing evidence that homosexuality is a heritable trait. (Sure make it a genetic trait that can potentially be treated pharmacologically, see how far that gets you with the gay community)

      • Paul Hooson

        Not true. From a early age all humans display characteristics of the adult sexuality they will develop. Further, look at the physical evidence of some women who are Gay that appear to be masculine characteristics, or some Gay males who are effeminate appearing, and tell me that there are not some genetic or other characteristics involved that are physically involved. Some researchers such as Dr. John Money of the Johns Hopkins Hospital have done extensive research into gender identity and other issues in which sexuality is an active part of the developing human right down to the DNA basis. Homosexuality also exists in animal species as well, and is considered a normal variation of sexuality among all mammal creatures.

        • jim_m

          Ass. I said that thee is not any undisputed scientific evidence of hereditary linkage.

          A lot of what people look like is in how the dress and style their hair. Just because you are an idiot and know nothing of science and cannot see past someone’s clothing to see the individual underneath is not my problem.

          Homosexuality expressed in animal species is materially different that human homosexuality. Fools and ideologues try to claim that evidence of something in the animal kingdom is proof of anything in the human.

          Once again: No one has identified a gene or other genetic link to homosexuality. And as I also said before finding such would potentially lead to the development of treatments for homosexuality and would be the foundation for arguing that it is a disease just like deafness. We treat deafness and there are deaf people who object to that.

          • jim_m

            I would add that back in the ’90′s the gay community was clamoring for a genetic link and then they realized that establishing that would mean that parents could potentially “treat” their children to prevent them from being gay or better yet you could develop a genetic test and murder them all in the womb.

            I’ll bet even the Catholic Church finds a way to make an exception to the rule for that one.

            Oddly enough you don’t hear people clamoring to find a genetic link anymore.

          • Paul Hooson

            Some conservatives want to tailor science to suit their ideology rather than accepting objective studies or evidence. – Further, the existence of homosexuality isn’t proof of some defect in humans, but proof of a normal variation in some humans. – Some conservatives attempt to define science based on their own privately held religious views or moral beliefs. – That is not a good way to look at science. – Further, often it seems as if some conservatives are overly concerned how others conduct their lives.

            Some didn’t like the public kiss of this football player. – But, do heterosexuals behave much differently? I have a long history of passionate public kisses with girlfriends in public for example. But, when a 58 year old guy has a girlfriend in their 20′s or early 30′s, I’m pretty proud.

          • Scalia

            If you’re going to make such a ridiculous charge, you should back it up with something other than hot air. As Jim accurately stated, there is no peer reviewed, conclusive evidence that there is a genetic link to homosexuality, and all desperate charges about conservatives bending science will not change that fact.

            Even conceding for sake of argument that there is a genetic link does not logically default to the conclusion that said phenomenon is a “normal variation.” Objective analysis, which you appear to be incapable of exercising, must consider the option that it is the result of a genetic defect. To automatically conclude that said behavior is “normal” is a direct example of bending science.

            Lesbians have ovaries, and male homosexuals produce sperm. Human beings are naturally geared for heterosexual reproduction, and sexual desire is overwhelmingly heterosexual. An objective scientist, therefore, when exercising objective analysis, must give logical weight to the fact that homosexuals may have a genetic defect which prevents them from acting normally. That’s science, Paul. You’re just cheerleading.

          • jim_m

            Sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, are also considered within the normal range of variation. You should stop talking about science since you are an ignorant ass that doesn’t understand the first thing about science.

            You throw out the word “science” like some religious totem that makes your argument correct.

          • LarryW

            found this. Not sure if it’s accurate, but it was on the google, so you know it’s true (j/k)

            http://borngay.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000006

          • jim_m

            Still not proof of a genetic link. I also have several gay friends who run totally counter to their claim that gays have wider faces, since theirs are quite thin. They also do not state in your link how many faces were analyzed only how many people looked at the images.

            And finally, the authors themselves disclaim any meaningful link saying that it “does not mean that any of the groups is easily recognizable on the street (and our Study 2 actually shows that it’s not that easy to guess anyone’s sexual orientation without knowing it)”. That last statement suggests that their research is pretty much meaningless.

            also the linked article states:researchers suggest the differences in facial shapes may indicate certain prenatal environmental factors.

            It’s always fun when non-scientists try to link journal articles because they don’t have the ability to look at them critically and see where the gaps and flaws in the study are (there are always gaps and flaws). People accept research finding uncritically and assume that because something is published that it is the last word on the subject and therefore unassailable truth.

          • LarryW

            And it’s always funny when people try to sound authoritative and comment on an article they obviously haven’t even read.

            You commented on the first peer review listed, ignoring the fact that there are 18 additional peer review studies (which you earlier claimed don’t exist at all) – and based your criticisms on our anecdotal personal experiences. That’s laughable.

          • jim_m

            And they don’t identify a genetic link. Period.

            I point to my anecdotal experience because the sad “study” you linked made a claim that the authors themselves wouldn’t even stand behind. My experience agrees with their unwillingness to back the claims you made about their study.

            You don’t know jack about how to interpret a scientific study. You made a claim that the article would not support. I even pointed out how they said that environmental factors could have made the differences they saw.

            So you are desperately grasping for some sort of “proof” but you wouldn’t know it if it came up and slapped you in the face.

          • jim_m

            You want my take?

            First review this page to understand that correlation is not cuasation: http://www.tylervigen.com/

            You are incredibly gullible.

            !) we already addressed this one

            2) It’s about fish. People are not fish

            3) “molecular studies have failed to find associated DNA markers” They also make numerous suggestion as to how it “may” or “might” be passed down but offer no proof of this.

            4) A study of people related to gays and not about gays at all. Results could be influenced by social issues.

            5) Talks about brain activity. Does anyone dispute that gays think differently than straight people, at least about some issues?

            6) correlation is not causation

            7) Gays react differently to sexual stimulus. This is news?

            8) Fruit fly behavior can be altered if you screw with their genes in ways that nature cannot replicate. Not relevant.

            9) Gays react differently to sexual stimulus. This is news?

            10) Gay women act like men. This is news? It certainly is not proof of genetic transmission.

            11) This is actually proof that the academic community will not allow studies that go against the politically correct, left wing nature of academia.

            12) correlation is not causation. Could be attributed to lifestyle. Could be the reverse that physiologic condition alters behavior.

            13) More idiotic fruit fly experiments. Flys are not people. Genetic manipulation in the lab is not equivalent to genetic inheritance and the rearrangement of genes in reproduction.

            14) Same study as above.See 11

            15) I don’t trust anyone when it is about self reporting penis size.

            16) correlation is not causation. No evidence of genetic link.

            17) correlation is not causation. No evidence of genetic link.

            18) correlation is not causation. No evidence of genetic link. You still are dealing with the fact that twins are raised even more similarly than non twin siblings. It is not surprising therefore that they end up the same.

            19) correlation is not causation. No evidence of genetic link. In fact brain development is highly influenced by environmental and experiential factors. The idea that the brains of gay people and straight people are different is not news. However, I would also say that the brains of Down’s Syndrome people and normal people are different too. Or was that not your point?

          • jim_m

            Yes correlation is not causation. There is a .992 correlation between US spending on science, space and technology and suicides by hanging , strangulation and suffocation. http://i.imgur.com/xqOt9mP.png

            By your definition if we need a Mars mission we just need to ramp up the suicide rate.

          • jim_m

            Here’s one for you Mr Genius: New passenger car sales is inversely correlated with suicides by handgun http://www.tylervigen.com/correlation_project/correlation_images/new-passenger-car-sales-us_suicides-by-handgun.png

            But new car sales are directly correlated to consumption of beef. http://www.tylervigen.com/correlation_project/correlation_images/per-capita-consumption-of-beef-us_new-passenger-car-sales-us.png

            So according to you, in order to reduce suicides by handgun we should eat more beef.

    • LiberalNightmare

      The big difference is that the first black football player had to be pretty damn good, whereas the latest black football player only had to be gay.

      • Paul Hooson

        No team is going to pay a player millions on a draft contract because of their sexuality. His skills as a football player put him on the team, where he was not passed over because of sexuality.

        • jim_m

          Contracts in the NFL are not guaranteed as they are in other leagues. If Sam does not make the team he gets nothing.

          • Paul Hooson

            But, he was drafted because of his skills, right?

          • LiberalNightmare

            That is the question.

  • Brucehenry

    Poor poor picked upon white straight males. We have such a tough time.

    • LiberalNightmare

      Your concern for us is touching.

  • LiberalNightmare

    We all know what Tebow did in the end zone, I dont even want to think what Sam does in the end zone.

    • JWH

      He’s a defensive player … so he’ll see the endzone less often than the collective Cleveland Browns.

      • LiberalNightmare

        I’ll bet that he sees a lot of endzones.

        • Brucehenry

          I get it buttsechs hur hur.

          • jim_m

            Hey, you’re all about the butthurt.

          • LiberalNightmare

            ill bet you do.

  • jim_m

    Prior to his coming out most NFL teams had Sam pegged as an undrafted free agent. That he was drafted at all can be more likely put down to the fact that the NFL wanted to make sure that no one could be claiming that they totally snubbed him because he is gay. I would beg that Goodell put a lot of pressure on teams in the 7th round to draft him.

    The question comes now as to whether or not the Rams will be allowed to fairly evaluate him or if they will be forced to keep him regardless of his ability in order to demonstrate the tolerance and diversity in the NFL.

    • Brucehenry

      You sound like Limbaugh back in the day talking about McNabb.

      • jim_m

        Ass. I pointed out what they were saying on ESPN during the draft.

        I simply question whether or not the NFL, having dealt with ugly racial issues over the last season with the Dolphins, is not going to pressure the Rams to keep him. Clearly, they are not going to tolerate any criticism of Sam. They have already signaled that they will penalize anyone saying anything critical of him.

        Ignorant bullshit like what you just spouted is exactly the problem. As soon as anyone suggests that there is any sort of favoritism (despite my pointing out that he was selected above the consensus of the scouts), they are going to be accused of all sorts of bigotry. You just confirmed my suspicion that Sam will be kept on no matter what because his being gay makes it impossible to release him without being accused of some sort of discrimination.

        • jim_m

          I would add that McNabb was a different issue. Rush was correct that he was overrated (evidence that he was near the end of his career already) but wrong that he was being kept around because he was black.

          The mystique of being a black QB is done and was done when Rush made his comments. There is only one openly gay player in the NFL. There is nothing similar between the current situation with Sam and the situation with McNabb at that time. If you got rid of McNabb there were other black QB’s in the league. How many openly gay players will be left when Sam gets cut? As of right now, zero.

          You comment was just another lefty bullshit attempt at a diversity gotcha.

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah maybe a little. Pot meet kettle.

            It was supposed to be a little gentle ribbing. If I wanted to flat out accuse you of bigotry I woulda tried harder.

            You DID sound just a little like Limbaugh for a minute there.

          • jim_m

            The situations with McNabb and Sam are totally different. The NFL scout consensus is that Sam is a tweener in size and may lack the skills for the pros. He performed poorly at the combine and his pro day which has served to ratify that consensus.

            It is a small surprise that he got drafted, so asking why is not untoward. Given that the league office is already coming down on anyone who says anything remotely derogatory it is not unreasonable to ask what pressure, if any, is the league going to apply to keep him on a roster?

          • Brucehenry

            Questions swirl

          • Commander_Chico

            Almost all NFL starting quarterbacks are hyped and overrated. Can you say Tom Brady? The Mannings at different points?

            Attributing that to race in McNabb’s case is why that fat fuck Limpbaugh is a racist.

  • Lawrence Westlake

    The politics of microdemographics. And just imagine if Sam makes an NFL team, gets in a game and heaven forbid makes a dumb play or — gasp — gets called for a penalty, perhaps even a personal foul, oh the horror. Then the Idiocracy classes will have to beat us over the heads with whether that too was homophobia! on display. Look, seriously, we’re in catastrophic decline. The next step for these media/Democrat nutcases is to grind the whole country to a halt unless and until there’s a transsexual professional athlete over whom they can project their various psychosexual disorders. And when sheer frivolity and abject farce become ingrained into the frameworks of the body politic a nation simply can’t survive in its then-current form. Within two decades or perhaps less we’ll be a 3rd world banana republic.

  • pork chop

    Pro scouts predict he will be a perfect fit for the Rams new “Lucky Pierre” formation.

    I think they may move him to tight end. Until he becomes a wide receiver.

    • http://www.outsidethebeltway.com rodney dill

      While the rest of the team will vie for Defensive End positions.

  • jim_m

    Just watched the Sam press conf with the Rams. He did a good job putting the focus on the fact that this is about playing football and downplaying his being gay. I think he genuinely wants to be thought of as a football player, not a gay football player. Sadly, I think that many more people want him to be a gay icon and football should be a secondary consideration at best.

    • JWH

      I read that a few NFL players were actually thinking of coming out of the closet a couple years ago, but they decided not to because of the pressure that would be on them.

      • jim_m

        I don’t doubt it. But I look at this a little like the NBA player who came out. He was basically on his way out of the league and part of his motivation seemed to be able to claim that he was being discriminated against.

        • JWH

          I wouldn’t put nefarious motives like that on him. But I do suspect that both Michael Sam and the NFL saw a marketing opportunity.

  • Retired military

    I gotta say I could care less who or what this guys kisses as long as it isnt illegal.

    My give a shit meter could not be emptier.

    • JWH

      Well said.

    • jim_m

      Very true. It’s not like gays have been barred from competing in sports. There have been NFL players that came out after their careers so obviously they have been able to play. Nor has there been any evidence that the NFL has discriminated against gays by not allowing them to play in the past.

      This is really just a bunch of made up BS by the media.

  • http://www.outsidethebeltway.com rodney dill

    I am Sam, Ram I am.
    I do not like cute girls and dams.
    I do not like them, Sam I am.
    I do not like them in my house,
    I do not like them for my spouse,
    I do not chase them here and there,
    I don’t chase any girls anywhere
    I do not like cute girls and dams
    I do not like them, Sam I am.

    • jim_m

      Should have saved that one for the caption contest.

      • http://www.outsidethebeltway.com rodney dill

        There’s a second verse.

        (A little bit louder, and a little bit worse)

      • Paul Hooson

        What? This isn’t the funny caption contest? – But, seriously those were some of the strangest statistics charts I’ve ever seen that you posted Jim. I have a little background in statistics and those make an interesting point of how nothing in common can be made to correlate by some. That sounds like the life mission of whacko political cults like Morality In Media who like to make absurd correlations from one thing to another with nothing in common.