2) in one of the biggest non-events of the year. michael jordan is going to appear on 60 minutes. the story says that he cops to gambling, but not really. in the story, jordan is quoted:
Yeah, I've gotten myself into [gambling] situations where I would not walk away and I've pushed the envelope. It's very embarrassing ... one of the things you totally regret. So you look at yourself in the mirror and say, 'I was stupid.'before i continue, i just want to note the complete misuse of the phrase "push the envelope". i think that if it sounds like a cliche, then athletes feel compelled to work it in their speech. but i digress, the story also says that he never jeapordized his career or his family. it's kinda hard to interpret what he's saying from that quote, so i hope to see it on sunday, but i was thinking it could go two ways. first, he could be issuing a half apology for his public gambling hijinks. in other words, he's apologizing, but not really. he's trying to make himself look like any other dude who likes to go to vegas. every once in a blue moon, when you don't win at anything in vegas, you think to yourself, "crap why didn't i walk away?" so in other words, he's actually not coming clean with the gambling. he's just trying to make himself look like you and me who go to vegas every now and again, lose some money that we didn't need, and is not a crazy gambler. and if you believe all the stories about making $100,000 bets on the golf course, he most certainly is. the second theory is that he's telling everyone to back off of his gambling habits because it's his money and he can do what he wants with it. the part about never jeapordizing his family, is silly if you think about it. jordan could go to vegas, blow ten million dollars and he would still have more money that all of us normal people put together. what do we care that he spends his money on gambling? i mean jerry seinfeld blows all of his money on antique porsche's and nobody seems to care. the thing is, i don't think anyone cares about the gambling rumors either. hey, the guy won 6 championships and then retired after he won his last (i don't care what anyone says, his stint with the wizards didn't count). so there's no danger of him fixing games. let the man gamble if he wants to.
3) cnn.si is doing this semi-goofy-but-cool-at-the-same-time thing. they have a bunch of "photo articles" posted. so normally, they'll do something like, the 25 greatest homers in world series history, and then you click through a photo album and each picture has a little description of the homer. the lists are a little goofy sometimes, but it's a good idea since sports photography can be so compelling sometimes. well, since about three weeks ago, they started doing these photo articles showing NFL and college cheerleaders. if you go to the cnn.com website, the link under the sports section that has been there all week (as opposed to current headlines) is "A must-see NFL cheerleaders gallery". now don't get me wrong, i appreciate cheesecake as much as anybody does. and i really don't have a problem with cnn.si putting these pictures up that are targeted at their core audience. sure it's slightly misogynist, but there's plenty worse on the web. what i do have a problem with is that if you flip through the cheerleader photo albums, cnn doesn't identify the name of the cheerleader. instead, they just list the team name next to the ladies photo. i know that it's a small thing, but that small thing really reinforces the idea of objectification here. as far as i know, professional photographers are supposed to get the name of any people that they take a picture of for the very purposes of captioning. i mean in the swimsuit issue they list the name of the model don't they? how is this different? like i said, not really that big a thing, but it seems pretty crass for a professional organization like CNN or SI.
4) i'm a bit conflicted about the world series since i was born in texas, but went to school in chicago. ahh...eff the astros, go sox!
5) don't click here. i warned you.