For example, I’ve been to social events in private homes where some of the guests turn on the t.v. and start watching “the game,” and proceed to sit there for three hours. I’m always amazed that such people get invited back (though admittedly, it seems to be relatives more than friends who do this; I suppose the relatives feel obligated to come even though they’d rather be home watching the game, and the hosts feel obligated to invite them even if they watch football the whole time).

David, what you don’t understand is that men bond by watching sports together. I’m as uninterested in football as you, but when I can travel across country to see my father, if he wants to watch football, we watch football.

1) The emphasis on the nationality of the athletes – is this a contest of great individuals, or between nations? It has often had serious consequences for the sports, too, when judges are biased towards athletes of their own nation.

2) The corruption in the IOC.

3) The subsidies that host cities must provide out of their tax money.

4) And most of all, the hypocritical and anti-capitalist interpretation of “amateur”. “Amateur” was originally a hidden class distinction – that is, gentlemen didn’t have to worry about some ditchdigger competing alongside them, since 12 hours a day of digging ditches left little time and energy for sports, and he was disqualified if he could quit that job because he was paid for sports. That’s changed, because now there is hardly anyone who doesn’t work for a living. So no one who has a shot at winning an Olympic event is truly an amateur anymore, that is someone who plays in his spare time and pays his own fees. “Amateur” has been redefined so that someone who is paid a government salary for athletics is an amateur, and someone who is paid by a non-profit to pursue athletics is an amateur, but someone who takes money from an (“evil”) corporation is excluded.

The question is whether he had a particular animus against Jews, as opposed to, say, Muslims or Hussites or Calvinists or Catholics. Luther objected to the Jews as a people, and that it was simply not possible to convert them. That suggests he was an anti-Semite. But Torquemada, as I noted above, probably isn’t. He welcomed converting Jews as warmly as Muslims and heretics. He objected to the practice of any non-Catholic religion.

If a person thought all black people should be enslaved, unless those black people underwent skin lightening treatments, would you argue he wasn’t a racist?

So no, I don’t see why the former (fish) should be viewed as other than “perfectly normal/acceptable,” nor why the latter (“Darwin’s fish”) should be viewed as other than “rude/insulting.” Not the “same mentality, different context,” whatever “same mentality, different context” is supposed to mean here.

David Bernstein: And just to clarify, I don’t feel “disliked” as Neurodoc suggested because I don’t follow sports. In fact, it served me very well socially in various ways. But I was thinking about Ilya’s posts about atheists, and how people won’t vote for an atheist. Just as it’s difficult to imagine a presidential candidate admitting that he’s an atheist, it’s difficult to imagine one saying, “you know, I just don’t care about sports.”

Or to imagine one saying something like, “You know, I just don’t dogs.” That is for the rather obvious reason that one doesn’t get very far as a politician by making it clear to the electorate that their own core beliefs or values or personal likes and dislikes are different from those of others.

Even an obvious non-sports fan like former NY mayor Koch used to have to go through the motions when the Yankees were in the World Series.

And kiss babies with gusto, applaud loudly less than excellent performances, profess to relish not so palatable ethnic food, etc., all as part of the job, because people expect it of elected officials.

I thought the Darwin car fish were clever, and got beaten up in the comments, because, you see, expressing one’s faith publicly, as by putting a fish on one’s car is perfectly normal/acceptable, but expressing one’s skepticism/atheism in exactly the same way is somehow rude/insulting. Same mentality, different context.

This really is socially obtuse.

William Buckley was offended by a Yale sociology professor who got a kick out of telling his class that he would crossover from agnostic/ atheist to confirmed believer if laboratory testing ever confirmed the presence of hemoglobin in wine that had been consecrated as part of the Communion service. The professor’s remark might be seen by some as clever, so why should it be judged rude/insulting just because Buckley took offense?

Putting a fish on their car, is some people’s way of publicly professing their Christian faith. Taking that symbol of Christian faith and adding feet to imply evolution, won’t be seen by very many as a tribute to Darwin, nor as so much a proclamation of one’s skepticism/atheism as an open mocking of the religious faith of others. “Clever” in a snarky way perhaps, but clearly disrespectful of those for whom the fish is a religious symbol.

ChrisTS: As for spectators picking up “teamwork, strategy, gamesmanship, sportsmanship, skill building”:
1) the idea that people develop skills or virtues by watching others who use/have them needs a lot of defending; 2) the idea that watching national sports teams and athletes provides a seemless lesson in sportsmanship, in particular, is absurd.

Watching professionals play sports is excellent training, just as observing good advocacy makes people better advocates. When you’re teaching kids about the importance of working together, the role of a great NBA point guard is a terrific example — it’s easy to point out the critical but unmeasurable things that make the team win. If you believe that playing team sports is a good thing (as I must, since I coach kids’ basketball), then watching the best trained people play the game is valuable, because it teaches kids how to improve their games.

But you’re right that watching professional sports, including the Olympic games, doesn’t teach sportsmanship. At the professional level, players do anything necessary to win, whether within the rules or not. Watching John Stockton and Karl Malone can be a valuable teaching tool with respect to skill-building and teamwork, but a horrible example of sportsmanship, since both were unusually dirty players.

It seems you have validated DB’s suggestion that you look down your nose at some hobbies (collecting things)and exalt others (watching sports). So, your being offended by his associating these hobbies was, in fact, a reflection of your own biases.

As for spectators picking up “teamwork, strategy, gamesmanship, sportsmanship, skill building”:
1) the idea that people develop skills or virtues by watching others who use/have them needs a lot of defending; 2) the idea that watching national sports teams and athletes provides a seemless lesson in sportsmanship, in particular, is absurd.

“The Holocaust never happened and we are going to finish what Hitler started.”

This revelation is delicious irony.

Why would it be controversial to conclude a long post about Jewish apostates being the worst anti-semites by suggesting that liberal Jews with qualms about Israel’s actions are secretly anti-semitic?

The Beanie Baby collecting thing was meant as ridicule; not comparable to the lifelong lessons that sports can teach, especially to those who understandably will be leaders, and perhaps warriors (teamwork, strategy, gamesmanship, sportsmanship, skill building — and yes, many who follow spectator sports are also participants picking up tips). If you honestly think purchasing a stuffed animal (not that there is anything at all wrong with such a hobby) is a comparable example to what the sporting world teaches, then perhaps you should have chosen a comparable hobby, like woodworking.

Regarding your having been “beaten up” about the Darwin fish thing, well let’s just say your credibility is shot. If one young student expressing amazement about your school being in the Final Four constitutes your best example there, and you are throwing out comments like this: “I wonder who actual gets more irrational dislike: atheists, or men who abstain from following sports? On this blog, it’s clearly the latter.” with scant evidence,
then I suspect you feel easily “beaten up”.

And for the record, a secure atheist who is best qualified to lead the country could easily overcome that disadvantage, much as Kennedy did for the Catholics, if he is confident in his own skin.

I don’t think the Mayor Koch example of him having to pretend to be a sports fan is all that convincing, considering the more identity-hiding he felt the need to do about even more inherent personal characteristics. If you just are who you are, and are secure in outly being it, chances are you’ll be much more secure, much less passive aggressive, and there’s much less misinterpretation that others are somehow against you, and there’s that need to preemptively insult for protection of your delicate ego.)

And no, before you think that was a cheap shot, of course not all non-sports following men are closeted, but I’d venture someone secure enough not to pretend would be in a much better position that those masks Koch felt he had to wear. I can see where that would be especially annoying, much like if a person was unable to ask a party guest to turn off the tv and let that feeling of being disrespected cloud his views of all sports fans.

Also, if it’s not your party and the sports watching bothers you, YOU could leave the room if you find it so annoying. Or is it that you would prefer the watchers engage with you, and feel slighted?

Doesn’t take a genius to see that if you’re in control of the situations you put yourself into, then you’ll feel much less annoyed by those who choose differently than you, and thus won’t feel the need to respond with such hostility.

Again, there’s plenty of non-sports fans out there who don’t feel disliked, annoyed, or beaten up, or believe their masculinity is being threatened when others ask questions. I wonder why you seem to be having such a tough time of it.

And, I like the Olympics and basketball, and have a few Beanie Babies, and think the Darwin-fish is clever. But no discussion of personal tastes warrants this degree of hostility.

As for me explaining why I don’t care for the Olympics, it’s rather ridiculous that one can’t express one’s own reasons for not enjoying spectator sports (only in response to critical comments) without people who follow sports feeling insulted, or even trying to find a psychological “trauma” to explain one’s deviancy.

And just to clarify, I don’t feel “disliked” as Neurodoc suggested because I don’t follow sports. In fact, it served me very well socially in various ways. But I was thinking about Ilya’s posts about atheists, and how people won’t vote for an atheist. Just as it’s difficult to imagine a presidential candidate admitting that he’s an atheist, it’s difficult to imagine one saying, “you know, I just don’t care about sports.” Even an obvious non-sports fan like former NY mayor Koch used to have to go through the motions when the Yankees were in the World Series.

And to take the analogy one step further, I once blogged about how I thought the Darwin car fish were clever, and got beaten up in the comments, because, you see, expressing one’s faith publicly, as by putting a fish on one’s car is perfectly normal/acceptable, but expressing one’s skepticism/atheism in exactly the same way is somehow rude/insulting. Same mentality, different context.

Well, perhaps Doc, one way would be to suggest that he selectively doctor the thread — the sudden need to bifurcate because it went OT according to you — intead of merely leaving it untouched.

That way, your “conclusion” above about not finding anything here that he’s written “innocuous” — and your earlier allegation that the thread was taken “off topic” by commenters rather than the conversation simply continuing in a different vein than you might prefer — would seem logical if people were unable to follow what was written, in the order it was written.

I wonder why you would have suggested that were it so clear that the words were “innocuous” (1:harmless 2 : not likely to give offense or to arouse strong feelings or hostility : inoffensive, insipid)

Words have power. Attitudes can be obvious to some, and easily dismissed by others. How about we agree to disagree, and let others draw their own conclusions about what they read?

If you’re secure in your conclusions that nothing written here was innoffensive to libertarians, sports fans, commenters or others — then you should be confident enough to let this thread stand untouched, instead of urging “bifurcation”.

Perhaps if you don’t want a thread to become “gratuitously personal” — and again I must quibble with your characterization as there was nothing gratuitous about my calling DB out on what he has written — you shouldn’t deliberately insult those commmenting in good faith and be surprised when they return your words in kind?

Eh “genius”?

Maybe we can learn how to discuss further issues of personal likes/dislike without unnecessarily insulting others or pretending that it’s the accepted libertarian perspective, and not something personal driving the responses.

But not if you feel the need to protect anyone from the awesome power of their own words, on display in black and white.

You see, if you make accusations like you’re being picked on more than atheists even! just because you’re a non-sports loving man, you really ought to have some way to back them up when people call you on them.

ps. I’m a lawyer too. And a voracious reader, and word lover. I stand by what I wrote above about too many insulated professional men perhaps never being questioned about their conclusions about others and assumptions of motive.

anonymous: NeurodocWhy do I suspect your calls to change the discussion after the fact by “bifurcating” and storing his words elsewhere are merely attempts to spin DB’s actual words here into something quite a bit more innocuous.

You think I am “attempt(ing) to spin DB’s actual words here into something quite a bit more innocuous”? Since I don’t recognize any of DB’s actual words here, in particular those about the Olympics or sports in general, as other than “innocuous,” I can’t imagine how I would go about attempting it. I think some of DB’s words in the course of the OT jag are most uncharacteristically foolish, even stupid, regrettably so in my view, but what is other than “innocuous”? Athletes competing as representatives of their respective countries being an affront to the sensibilities of libertarians? Being the “disliked” on account of his disinterest in sports in a way similar to the scorn felt by atheists? What?

If there is anything I find objectionable in this, it is your gratuitous personalization of it.

Why do I suspect your calls to change the discussion after the fact by “bifurcating” and storing his words elsewhere are merely attempts to spin DB’s actual words here into something quite a bit more innocuous.

Don’t write it if you can’t handle other people honestly asking about it. Geez, it’s like you think we readers need to be “protected” from the revelations that come through honest, free speech.

Boy, I get the impression that some of you doctors and lawyers must live in bubbles, with your “underlings” never asking a question, or otherwise putting your own obvious superiority and “right” way of thinking into doubt.

That must be hard to respond non-defensively over the top then, when you are first confronted by someone who calls you on your exact words and is skeptical of your preferred characterization of your “innocuous” comments.

*Hit the delete button and BAIL out when confronted with people who honestly think differently than you, eh Doc?*

*(Let it be noted that the needlessly and truly stupid actually started earlier with, “Interesting that DB is also a psychologist now, too.”)

Matt: I think the most interesting thing about this story is that a British newspaper printed it. To a layman like myself, that suggests one of two things:a) The authors are confident that their article would stand up in a British libel trial (where the burden of proof is on the author, not the claimant).b) The authors are confident that A-Jad couldn’t get his case heard in British court.Which is it?I don’t know much about the law, but to me this is the most interesting angle here. It’s a pity that the smart commenters and bloggers here are busy hunting for (dead) anti-semites rather than addressing it. I came here expecting an answer to this question. Can anyone give me one?

Calling someone a Jew is not a defamatory statement, because it does not tend to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally (Sim v. Stretch, per Lord Atkin).

Shhh. Why be fair, when it’s so much easier to just play the victim and ascribe bad intent to honest questions and observations. It’s been a working strategy so far, afterall … freebie country and all.

Now if only we could deport those damn Cherokees sitting on our land!

Perhaps they have indeed had their own non-beliefs ridiculed, and only then switched from innocuous to insulting, but that’s no reason to automatically assume you have to put down the personal choices of others in order to make your own seem superior. (like your original claim that seemed to be “true libertarians can’t watch sports in good faith, or support a ‘home’ team.”)

Vader: Wow, David. I guess it shouldn’t surprise us that a thread like this has brought out so many nut-jobs.I find it tremendously revealing that suggesting someone has Jewish ancestry should be described as an accusation or a libel.

To be fair to some, I think they were assuming that for an Iranian, holocaust-denying leader, to be ‘accused’ of Jewish ancestry would be regarded as an insult in Iran.

But you didn’t write that originally. You wrote,

“Every four years, I have to hear far, far more about the Olympics than I care to. It’s even worse when the Olympics are held in the U.S., so I’m glad they will be held in Rio and not Chicago in 2016.”

And then when I inquired why so curmudgeonly on this topic, you wrote,

“Can your mind conceive of the possibility that I just have no interest in watching other people play games, or listening to commentary about it, period and that the fact that I’m a libertarian might make the Olympics especially annoying, with the inane idea that an athlete somehow “represents” his countrymen?”

and from that jumped to,

“At some point as a young adult, I decided my time was far better spent worrying about my own life and my own achievements (or lack thereof) … I wonder who actual gets more irrational dislike: atheists, or men who abstain from following sports? On this blog, it’s clearly the latter.”

and

and I don’t really care if people watch sports or not, any more than I care whether, say, they collect beanie babies

C’mon now. I may be dumb, iyho, but I’m not stupid. Your condescesion there surely was meant to be insulting not innocuous, and is what makes me think that shoulder chip is going to get mighty mighty heavy one day if you don’t work to recognize and stifle it.

Thanks for responding though and not deleting. (that’s more O.K.’s style really though…) You’re not half bad as a blogger here, except for that presumed superiority that sometimes comes across in your responses. We really do like you well enough, friend, and of course, everybody has their grumpy moods before shaking out of it. Hope you have a good week, and they’re not talking too much tomorrow about the weekend’s scores where you’re at.

It’s easy for a casual and perfectly innocent comment to be taken as an insult. What people hear isn’t always what the speaker said.

I’ll buy that, but there’s really no reason for an innocent, “I’m really not interested in ….” to be taken as including “and you’re a fool for being interested.” But again, it strikes me as very similar to a religious person asking, “hey, want to go to church with me,” receiving the answer “no, I’m an atheist, I’m not interested in going to church,” and the churchgoer in question feeling insulted, as if the mere existence of an atheist who is unapologetic (but not obnoxious) about his atheism is an insult.

Third, and more personally, I suspect (as others have noted) that the negative reactions you get from sports fans probably come from the way you express yourself, as you did in this post.

No it’s more like this (real incident):

U. Mich. law student to me, a visiting professor–Professor, you must be very excited that GMU is in the final four? Me: I’m glad the school is getting good publicity, but otherwise I’m not really interested in college basketball. Student: REALLY!???! [Voice rising, and looking at me like I'm an alien] How could you NOT CARE that YOUR SCHOOL’S TEAM is in the Final Four?

Much more recent, I got a few outraged emails from readers along the lines of HOW COULD YOU NOT CARE ABOUT THE OLYMPICS!!!!???? And one genius in this thread even suggested that I my unnatural lack of interest in the Olympics must have something to do with my Jewishness. Geez.

You really think that atheists and non-sports-fans get treated rougher in academia than Evangelical Christians?

No, that’s completely absurd, and I didn’t say such a thing.

David Bernstein: the idea that one should take pride in the accomplishments of a complete stranger who happens to have been born in the same country as you is contrary to the way libertarians tend to think. It’s also the same mentality politicians tend to rely on in pushing various collectivist endeavors, so it’s not surprising that libertarians who are immune to such appeals would also not find things like the Olympics compelling, except as a celebration of individual achievement.

First, I’d like some evidence that libertarians enjoy spectator sports less than others. Based on my experience, that seems wrong. Statistics?

Second, libertarians aren’t limited to celebrating “individual competition.” That sounds more Objectivist than Libertarian, since Libertarians celebrate voluntary cooperation. You mean Libertarians can’t play baseball, because it’s a team sport? I’d expect libertarians would object to being coerced to partcipate in or fund a sports competition, but why their philosophy would hinder them from enjoying it is beyond me.

Third, and more personally, I suspect (as others have noted) that the negative reactions you get from sports fans probably come from the way you express yourself, as you did in this post. I’ve never seen anybody get worked up when someone asked about the Patriots says, “I don’t follow football, sorry.” But they do get offended when somebody points out how silly spectator sports are and they they are far too busy and important to pay attention to them. Especially when egghead law professors already have a reputation of thinking pretty highly of themselves. It’s easy for a casual and perfectly innocent comment to be taken as an insult. What people hear isn’t always what the speaker said.

P.S. You really think that atheists and non-sports-fans get treated rougher in academia than Evangelical Christians? That’s not my experience.

I find it tremendously revealing that suggesting someone has Jewish ancestry should be described as an accusation or a libel.

For the same reason that there are black critics on the right of things like hip-hop music, inner city decay, single motherhood, etc. It removes the sting of being accused of being either a racist or anti-Semite for expressing these opinions. Given that Bernstein slyly mentions Jewish critics of Israel in the same post as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he can hardly wonder why some might interpret his words as a blanket accusation of anti-Semitism against critics of Israel and why some might want to derail that accusation by appealing to their Jewish ancestry.

Respectfully Professor, you might consider that perhaps you are prejudging many “believers” and the sports fans, many of whom could care less about the personal choices of others.

I’ve no doubt there are some zealous fans, of both religions and sports teams, who might belittle non-believers or those who don’t choose to follow sports.

Perhaps you’ve had the misfortune of meeting such people, and now carry a big chip on your shoulder — “I’ll belittle their beliefs, before they can criticize mine.”

But “many”? And making presumptions that “believers” hold the personal choices of others in lesser regard, whether it be religion or which team to root for? Simply not true.

Maybe rethink your prejudices, and don’t assume that the choices you make (sports watching wastes time; Christians all want to convert non-believers, libertarians can’t support the home team) are universal to others?

Your disrespect and that big old chip perhaps bring on some of the defensive “Go Team” responses in others who do enjoy displays of athletic excellence and the minor discomfort every two years, of hearing about the Olympic Games.

Personally, the reason I asked for further clarification on your Olympic dislike: I’ve never met anyone, non sports fan or not, who was “against” the family of nations coming together to compete honestly in physical pursuits, and share each other’s company in representing their home country. That’s why I asked about Munich — did you think it was a cheap ribbing?

If I may be allowed one prediction/hope to close out this issue: I hope you mellow a bit as you age, come to appreciate others who may be different from you, and realize there’s no need to think lesser — that one view is correct, and the other not. (I think your belittling comments, and trying to hang it on the libertarian thing, caught more than a few readers here by surprise.)

Besides, oftentimes, the opening ceremonies feature healthy young people from around the globe, fireworks, and carefully staged songs and entertainment. EXACTLY the thing, perhaps, that a young child might like to watch with her family — reading the parade of banners representing so many countries of the world.

You see, DB, sometimes it’s not just about us and our little small individual beliefs we hold and cling so tightly to.

Sometimes — and I indeed believe you often see these moments in things like the Olympic Games — it’s a very beautiful thing when people can come together and overcome their petty differences in pushing each other to excel. Please take care not to let that shoulder chip affect your eyesight, or your heart. People are counting on you to keep positive and see the beauty in all things, I am sure, and it would be a shame to let petty things hold you back from such joys in life.

I hope you find time in your busy schedule to reflect on my words, as I’ve listened to you and wondered what might be causing such sour attitude presentation from a man who has so obviously been blessed in life.

David Bernstein: Would you say that Luther was not anti-Semitic because his hatred of Jews was based on their refusal to adopt his Christian precepts?

The question is whether he had a particular animus against Jews, as opposed to, say, Muslims or Hussites or Calvinists or Catholics. Luther objected to the Jews as a people, and that it was simply not possible to convert them. That suggests he was an anti-Semite. But Torquemada, as I noted above, probably isn’t. He welcomed converting Jews as warmly as Muslims and heretics. He objected to the practice of any non-Catholic religion.

And Neuro, I suppose objections to the Olympics is not inherently unlibertarian except to the extent that the nation-state is inherently unlibertarian. But libertarians do tend to be individualists to some degree, and the idea that one should take pride in the accomplishments of a complete stranger who happens to have been born in the same country as you is contrary to the way libertarians tend to think. It’s also the same mentality politicians tend to rely on in pushing various collectivist endeavors, so it’s not surprising that libertarians who are immune to such appeals would also not find things like the Olympics compelling, except as a celebration of individual achievement.

Matt: I imagine it damaging (and possibly untrue) , and isn’t that what libel laws are all about?I know it’s a longshot hypothetical, but it would be hilarious.

I know nothing about libel law in the UK other than that plaintiffs there enjoy a great advantage over those here because of who bears the burden of proof there. I am pretty confident, though, that things are not so otherwise different there that a plaintiff need only establish that what they object to is “damaging (and possibly untrue).” (“Damages” are the measure of injury in a tort case. When what is alleged is libel or slander, that is an injury to reputation, the issue is whether what was published was both defamatory and false. And in this country, though I don’t know about in the UK, when the plaintiff is a “public figure,” it may be necessary for them to show more than just “defamatory” and “false,” that it is that it was published
with actual knowledge of the falsity or perhaps reckless disregard for the truth, and that there was no privilege. When all can see that what has been said is based on “inference,” that might be a defense too, because it amounts to opinion as to what conclusions are to be drawn.

And the reason why “smart commenters and bloggers” are not addressing themselves to your musings about libel law here, is because there is no there there. On the other hand, discussion of antisemitism and anti-semites, both those now dead and those still living, is immediately relevant to a discussion of the political uses and motivations for claiming that someone is of Jewish origins.

I wonder who actual gets more irrational dislike: atheists, or men who abstain from following sports? On this blog, it’s clearly the latter.

Perhaps, as is common in your “analysis” here, you are simply misinterpreting and your conclusions are off?

Could it be that commenters on this blog have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with men who don’t follow sports. (like EV once mentioned of himself)

But they do have a problem with men who don’t follow sports, who snarkily presume superiority to those that do?

I’m sure at your age, in juggling your personal and professional lives, following sports had to go. And you deliberately chose to do so.

But why try to impose your value choices on others, or presume “dislike” just because somebody else values something more than you? Doesn’t sound too libertarian to me… and who cares what other people do or don’t? Why assume that we like you less because you don’t follow sports, instead of realizing we might not like you because obviously, you are a sports spob?

Acting as though the Olympics are the worst thing to happen and it’s so hard just to not listen or follow, and those who do have pride in their own country’s athletic acheivements are somehow … not libertarian, or wasting time.

And that you’re being “picked on” just because you’re a non-sports-following guy. Heh. You really ought to pick your crusades better DB. And now you got me wondering: were you snubbed by some arrogant athlete as a boy when asking for an autograph?

Because your dislike here seems way too personal just to be the typical “I like things other than sports”. Snark against those who do like the Olympics, and following local teams — where exactly does that come from, Sport?

worrying about what some well-paid strangers who wouldn’t give me the time of day if they saw me on the street, and who have no connection to the team’s “hometown” other than being paid to play in it did or didn’t do.

Smells like professional jealousy to me, like those athletes should be giving you — a law professor — the time of day, considering you are their intellectual better. And it doesn’t really work with amateur athletes who compete in the Olympics, plenty of whom don’t have attitude and WOULD give fans the time of day. (Generalizations: all athletes are well-paid, simply not true.)

Vancouver … February 12 to 28, 2010. Go Team!!

For what it’s worth, I did not think DB’s post on the Olympics revealed much of anything about him or needed explanation. He doesn’t like the hoopla.