ESPN - Brady Quinn

Did anybody else get tired of seeing his pretty face, and hearing Brady Quinn's name called out by ESPN during the draft on Saturday? Someone who didn't know better would have thought that ESPN had adopted Pretty Boy Quinn. I thought the whole spectacle of ESPN trying build this image of a pretty whiteboy, with his pretty girlfriend was sickening. This coming from another whiteboy. There was a reason why Pretty Boy Quinn fell so far in the draft. He won few meaningful big games while at Notre Dame. That idea seemed to escape ESPN, during the whole charade on Saturday. The only reason why Quinn was being mentioned in the same breath with JaMarcus Russell of Louisiann State for the number one pick, was because Pretty Boy started campaigning for the slot during the combines. If ESPN is going to help build images for insignificant white athletes, well then they better start returning the favors to African American athletes. Why didn't ESPN talk about the fall of Heisman Trophy winner, Troy Smith, all the way to the 5th round? ESPN performed the same act last year for another pretty whiteboy, what's his name? Oh yea, Matt Leinhart. Saturday, everytime Quinn's name did not come from the NFL Commissioner, ESPN cameras focused on the facial expressions and body langauage of Quinn. One would think that with the fall-out from the IMUS episode, that a major media outlet would more appropriately serve its viewers, instead of displaying constant frivolous and sensationalistic images. But, what do you expect from a major corporation that wants its viewers to pay money on its website for the privilege of reading a mock draft.

Ready, Aim, Fire!

Ready, Aim, Fire! In the aftermath of the Virginia Tech tragedy last week, two issues have come to mind with one of them not being so obvious.First, I believe that every responsible, rational person has the right to own a gun. I'm not a gun-nut, and I don't support the NRA, nor will I ever. However, there are rational reasons for owning a gun. My brother told me that he bought a gun after Katrina; reason being was that the goverment said that if a catastrophic event happened in a given area, everyone could expect to fend for themselves for at least three days. Three days would be a long shopping period for looters, and our neighborhoods would be at risk for opportunistic elements.As for irrational people who feel that our country would be a safer environment, there are reasons why these irrational people are not among our leaders. If everyone owned a gun and carried it, there would be a new meaning to the "Wild West." "Road Rage" would evolve into "Death Rage." Every person who felt that they were cut off, or looked at wierdly would open fire. Our country is violent enough, and becoming desensitized enough without millions of people being allowed to carry a gun, and act like Matt Dillon. Worst yet, another scenario could happen that Corporate America would not like to see. With shootings rising to epidemic proportions, who's going to be shopping at our malls? Who's going to attend ballgames and concerts? Yes sir, everyone might be allowed to carry guns and the traffic problem might be alleviated, but the United States would become a nation of homebodies. Again, I'm not trying to deny anyone's right to bear arms but for all these rational thinking people who claim America would be safer if everyone was packing heat, I say to those people if you want to prove your ungodly rights, well maybe you should show patriotic support and volunteer to carry a gun in Iraq.The other issue that has come to mind in light of Virginia Tech, is not really an issue at all. However, it should be an issue, and maybe even bigger than Virginia Tech? I don't want to downplay the tragedy of last week or minimize it, but I think it is fair to put V.T. into perspective. Thirty two people died last week from a gunshots, and the media jumped all over the story all week like this sort of behavior never occurs in the United States. Thirty two people, many innocent, die every weekend in our inner cities. Why does the media, nor the public think this is an issue? Why does the media not fill our living rooms and our computers with these perpetual traggic events? Isin't it is ironic that people who live among death and stray bullets almost everyday, these people don't shout out for their rights to bear arms. Isin't that ironic? Do the people who strive to survive in the inner cities know something that surburbia does not? We are living in time when some decisions have to be made, for the good of now, and for the good of our grandchildren. I don't want anybody now, or anyone of tomorrow have to live in our country in a state of fear, and I don't want them to feel that they need to carry a gun when they go to Starbucks, or to the park. I also don't want people to ignore what is being ignored in our inner cities. If people really feel strongly about carrying a gun, why don't you talk with someone from the inner cities and ask them if they feel, or would feel safer carrying a gun. The answer may may make you rethink your idea of safety, and how we as a nation should attack this issue of real gun-nuts.