Hammock Parties
07-19-2007, 02:24 AM
LMAO
This is terrific stuff.
http://www.kcchiefs.com/news/2007/07/19/dawes_call__response__young_at_heart__age_too/
Think Michael Moore and George Bush. One guy is obsessed with the other guy who, by all appearances, ignores him. That would probably best describe one local columnist’s feelings for Peterson, the man-he-can’t-get-fired. The fact is American newspapers are losing their readers so fast that in their search for diversity they somehow forget about diversity of opinion. “Same stuff different day,” correctly observed one reader after scanning one of our columnist’s latest screeds. (Kansas City Star, July 14, 2007), adding, “We are so tired of hearing the SOS from you.” Like this gentleman wisely figured out, if you read the columnist in question you know the outcome before you open the fold; for to be this writer is to breathe in a climate of unrelieved pessimism when writing about Carl Peterson.
Newspaper articles are inevitably drawn to melodrama, and Peterson has historically been cast in the role of cad in most of this fellow’s offerings. “I’m on Trent’s [Green] side,” our columnist writes, “mostly because there’s a bigger issue at stake. Peterson needs to go.” (Kansas City Star, May 24, 2007) We’re beyond subtle knifings now and no interpretation of events, trends or feelings is too silly or contradictory for this columnist if it helps to fan his resentment that Peterson still holds his post. In this latest episode in four parts [columns] our columnist’s thoughts undergo further hydrolysis, separating out the relatively legitimate arguments and criticisms you can make about Peterson and offering in their place what amounts to some personal attacks and a tin-ear understanding of the salary cap. (Kansas City Star, June 25, 2007) Explaining that Larry Johnson [despite an already existing contract] has no choice but to hold out for his money, he writes in the same column the disturbing downside for the team if Peterson should give it to him. “Stop fighting [Johnson’s] fight for him,” suggested one reader. (Kansas City Star, July 15, 2007)
Indeed, the columnist is so committed to make a case that Peterson is tight-fisted that he writes that Brian Waters was swindled by signing an “extremely Chiefs-friendly agreement….simply not the kind of reward teams generally give proven performers and rock-solid citizens such as Waters,” conveniently neglecting to mention that Waters negotiated his own contract and in doing so saved himself from having to pay an agent over $1.05 million dollars. (Kansas City Star, July 14, 2007)
We can take it as serious that the team’s running back – accompanied by agent, of course – is contemplating holding out in hopes of getting more money from the team. Nothing new here. It happens everywhere. And we can follow that if that player [or more likely his agent] wanted to send signals that he was going to do that he would line up someone who would do a bang-up job of selling his case. And you wouldn’t need to pay a finder’s fee to locate that fellow, especially one who is permanently seeking a national recognizability quotient that exceeded Anna Nicole Smith’s when she was alive. So, take a little something of what the player said and magnify it by the weight of the writer’s angst every time he thinks of Peterson and these columns are what you get. The pen is mightier than the bored, or so he must think.
A player who is angry for reasons neither you nor I will ever understand is nothing new. But the personal bitterness that fuels a member of the media to write “nappy-headed, leather-coated GM” in one of his columns (Kansas City Star, May 22, 2007) certainly is. In the spring, summer, fall, and winter of his discontent, hatred for Peterson has become for him a mental paralysis.
This is terrific stuff.
http://www.kcchiefs.com/news/2007/07/19/dawes_call__response__young_at_heart__age_too/
Think Michael Moore and George Bush. One guy is obsessed with the other guy who, by all appearances, ignores him. That would probably best describe one local columnist’s feelings for Peterson, the man-he-can’t-get-fired. The fact is American newspapers are losing their readers so fast that in their search for diversity they somehow forget about diversity of opinion. “Same stuff different day,” correctly observed one reader after scanning one of our columnist’s latest screeds. (Kansas City Star, July 14, 2007), adding, “We are so tired of hearing the SOS from you.” Like this gentleman wisely figured out, if you read the columnist in question you know the outcome before you open the fold; for to be this writer is to breathe in a climate of unrelieved pessimism when writing about Carl Peterson.
Newspaper articles are inevitably drawn to melodrama, and Peterson has historically been cast in the role of cad in most of this fellow’s offerings. “I’m on Trent’s [Green] side,” our columnist writes, “mostly because there’s a bigger issue at stake. Peterson needs to go.” (Kansas City Star, May 24, 2007) We’re beyond subtle knifings now and no interpretation of events, trends or feelings is too silly or contradictory for this columnist if it helps to fan his resentment that Peterson still holds his post. In this latest episode in four parts [columns] our columnist’s thoughts undergo further hydrolysis, separating out the relatively legitimate arguments and criticisms you can make about Peterson and offering in their place what amounts to some personal attacks and a tin-ear understanding of the salary cap. (Kansas City Star, June 25, 2007) Explaining that Larry Johnson [despite an already existing contract] has no choice but to hold out for his money, he writes in the same column the disturbing downside for the team if Peterson should give it to him. “Stop fighting [Johnson’s] fight for him,” suggested one reader. (Kansas City Star, July 15, 2007)
Indeed, the columnist is so committed to make a case that Peterson is tight-fisted that he writes that Brian Waters was swindled by signing an “extremely Chiefs-friendly agreement….simply not the kind of reward teams generally give proven performers and rock-solid citizens such as Waters,” conveniently neglecting to mention that Waters negotiated his own contract and in doing so saved himself from having to pay an agent over $1.05 million dollars. (Kansas City Star, July 14, 2007)
We can take it as serious that the team’s running back – accompanied by agent, of course – is contemplating holding out in hopes of getting more money from the team. Nothing new here. It happens everywhere. And we can follow that if that player [or more likely his agent] wanted to send signals that he was going to do that he would line up someone who would do a bang-up job of selling his case. And you wouldn’t need to pay a finder’s fee to locate that fellow, especially one who is permanently seeking a national recognizability quotient that exceeded Anna Nicole Smith’s when she was alive. So, take a little something of what the player said and magnify it by the weight of the writer’s angst every time he thinks of Peterson and these columns are what you get. The pen is mightier than the bored, or so he must think.
A player who is angry for reasons neither you nor I will ever understand is nothing new. But the personal bitterness that fuels a member of the media to write “nappy-headed, leather-coated GM” in one of his columns (Kansas City Star, May 22, 2007) certainly is. In the spring, summer, fall, and winter of his discontent, hatred for Peterson has become for him a mental paralysis.