Pheleps: Weed or Sugar, Pick Your Drug

[greybeard]

Me, it's sugar. Man, talk about some addicting s@$%. I mean, when I'm into the stuff, I'd sell my MaMa to get me some. And, oh, did I say that I'm one of millions upon millions of Americans who eat the stuff like candy even though they are diabetic.

And, putting aside how ruinous sugar is with regard to the body's use of insullin, and even its substantial contribution to that other killer, obesity (which in case you haven't been looking lately is a big problem), there is a decent amount of evidence that it is sugar that is the root cause of clogged arteries, not the cholesterol: that cholesterol gets stuck in arteries only because the inner lining of the arteries becomes irritated and develops irregular surfaces that can catch the collesterol.

Now, the cost of this drug, er, do we really have to call it food, known as SUGAR in terms of health care and quality of life issues is enormous.

And, what boys and girls, does Kellog sell? That's right, sugar. Straight carbs (some serious, serious sugar themselves) laced, coated, combined with refined sugar and corn oil. This stuff kills, at least it makes our kids fat, way, way too many of them to ignore the implications of starting your day with Kellog's Corn Flakes, at least in my book.

Now, a dude like Pheleps, he can eat tons of sugar because he's swimming a gazzillion miles a year and burns the stuff faster than he can take it in. So to him, it is not poison. And, he hasn't gone to college, he spent all his time swimming, so lending his name to Kellog, letting them put his picture on their poison boxes, can be forgiven.

Smoking pot, on the other hand, many condemn. I swear I heard Michael Wilbon, whom I respect to death, slamming the kid for getting caught smoking some dope at a party at the U of South Carolina at a party that even I can tell was ragging. Slam him, if you must, Michael, but please don't let us forget what almost killed you last year, and guaranteed will take years off your life. That, my man, is Sugar; you do remember the diabetic induced heart attack, right? So, while you Mr. Michael were out front on this issue and said that Kellog should drop Pheleps because someone took a picture of him partying hearty, this is the one place that you and I agree. I am delighted that Kellog's marketing plan went down the tubes.

Kind of ironic though, the perveyors of poison who market the hell out of their product to our kids get to take the high moral ground in all this. Not by me they don't. I think they are rats.

[Cavlaw]

Actually, he went to the University of Michigan.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Actually, he went to the University of Michigan.
The party was at South Carolina. And it's PHELPS. Greybeard has had too much sugar tonight.

[Cavlaw]

The party was at South Carolina. And it's PHELPS. Greybeard has had too much sugar tonight.
I was responding to this:


And, he hasn't gone to college, he spent all his time swimming, so lending his name to Kellog, letting them put his picture on their poison boxes, can be forgiven.

[YmoBeThere]

I was responding to this:

On the greybeard having had too much sugar tonight, I think CBB was right on! :D

[2535Miles]

If I pick weed, then I'm most assuredly going to pick sugar later. :p

[rockymtn devil]

Smoking pot, on the other hand, many condemn. I swear I heard Michael Wilbon, whom I respect to death, slamming the kid for getting caught smoking some dope at a party at the U of South Carolina at a party that even I can tell was ragging. Slam him, if you must, Michael, but please don't let us forget what almost killed you last year, and guaranteed will take years off your life. That, my man, is Sugar; you do remember the diabetic induced heart attack, right? So, while you Mr. Michael were out front on this issue and said that Kellog should drop Pheleps because someone took a picture of him partying hearty, this is the one place that you and I agree. I am delighted that Kellog's marketing plan went down the tubes.

Perhaps you heard a different Wilbon segment than I did, but what you've ascribed to Wilbon is not what I heard him say on PTI or what I read in his recent Washington Post column.

Instead of condemning Phelps for smoking pot, he said 1) by accepting millions in endorsements you gave up the right to be a normal 23-year-old and 2) apparently the sincere apology you gave after your 2004 DUI arrest was not really all that sincere since you apparently didn't learn anything from it.

Implicit in both of Wilbon's criticisms was that, irrespective of whether or not marijuana is terribly harmful or should be criminalized, it is illegal and Phelps broke his word to his sponsors and to his fans by engaging in that conduct.

[YmoBeThere]

Perhaps you heard a different Wilbon segment than I did, but what you've ascribed to Wilbon is not what I heard him say on PTI or what I read in his recent Washington Post column.


Ahhh, don't let the facts get in the way of a greybeard rant on Derrick Pheleps. :D:D:D (Doesn't everyone hate a Tarhole?)

[CameronBornAndBred]

I was responding to this:
Ahhhhh. I missed that part. The last hippie I had was crunchier than normal.

[greybeard]

Gentlemen, gentlemen. You are talking to a guy who has been on the wagon, we are talking no bread, no pasta, no cereal, no sugar, candy, ice cream, cake, etc, for two months, which is why I have been particularly bad at spelling lately (yeah right).

I read what Wilbon wrote and said and it ain't what you guys are saying he said. He said that Phellps did something wrong for which his sponsors should punish him, not mentioning that his sponsor, Kellog, which did just that, is the purveyor of poison mostly to kids and used Phelps to do its bidding. That was the real story in all of this, if there is one.

Wilbon is a sports writer; his boy Tony invented sports writers as pop culturists. Tony knows something about that sort of stuff. His best work by far was his weekly commentaries on modern life that appeared each Sunday in the Washington Post's style section. Wilbon is no Tony, and missed the boat widely in this instance by trying to emulate him.

So, I dashed off something that tried to play off Wilbon's miss, to highlight the hypocracy of a company that makes its money selling poison as breakfast food and using sports stars to do it and then throwing one of them under the bus for having had a little fun with the help of a weed that should not be illegal (no, I won't go into a rant on the collosal stupidity of the war on drugs).

So, my droogy droogs, what d'ust thou have to offer in the way of other sweet dumpings for this poor spellin man to be burried under. ;)

[rockymtn devil]

Gentlemen, gentlemen. You are talking to a guy who has been on the wagon, we are talking no bread, no pasta, no cereal, no sugar, candy, ice cream, cake, etc, for two months, which is why I have been particularly bad at spelling lately (yeah right).

I read what Wilbon wrote and said and it ain't what you guys are saying he said. He said that Phellps did something wrong for which his sponsors should punish him, not mentioning that his sponsor, Kellog, which did just that, is the purveyor of poison mostly to kids and used Phelps to do its bidding. That was the real story in all of this, if there is one.

Wilbon is a sports writer; his boy Tony invented sports writers as pop culturists. Tony knows something about that sort of stuff. His best work by far was his weekly commentaries on modern life that appeared each Sunday in the Washington Post's style section. Wilbon is no Tony, and missed the boat widely in this instance by trying to emulate him.

So, I dashed off something that tried to play off Wilbon's miss, to highlight the hypocracy of a company that makes its money selling poison as breakfast food and using sports stars to do it and then throwing one of them under the bus for having had a little fun with the help of a weed that should not be illegal (no, I won't go into a rant on the collosal stupidity of the war on drugs).

So, my droogy droogs, what d'ust thou have to offer in the way of other sweet dumpings for this poor spellin man to be burried under. ;)

Here's the Wilbon column:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/03/AR2009020303468.html?hpid=topnews

Of course he says that Phelps did something wrong. But the wrong wasn't smoking pot so much as making a stupid decision in light of his endorsements and his previous "kids will be kids" moment that he assured us all he had learned from. That's Wilbon's point.

He actually says that if Michael Phelps wants to get high, he should do it in the privacy of his home. He goes on to say that taking bong hits is not, in and of itself, "heinous" but rather, it's "stupid, given what's at stake".

I agree with your points in general. I don't agree with your characterization of Wilbon's statements.

[greybeard]

It pains me to say this, but my boy Tony is also, as the orangeman himself would put it if he were me, "An Idiot!" Seems that on the on-line talking points thing that the two do together, Tony joined with Wilbon in saying that Phelps was naughty and should not continue to get the dough.

I think that their joint position on this does not hold water. Weed should be legalized, both admit that everyone who is Phelps age who does it is okay with them, and that Phelps was wrong for doing it at a party with chicks. Huh? Unless you're into chocolate chocolate brownies, and this is where I began bringing Wilbon into this in the first place for which I am sorry, why else smoke weed but to party with cool music and pretty chicks and everybody havin fun? Tony and Mike suggest that Phelps should have gotten high if he wanted in his living room alone. Wow, and I thought I was feelin my age. :rolleyes:

Seriously guys, my principal reason for writing was to rant about sugar and cereal companies who sell it as breakfast food using stars like Phelps to do it. I really, really enjoy Wilbon as a writer, as a sports commentator, and an intellect. I think that he is terrific on TV, and am jealous as hell about the life he gets to lead.

[AtlBluRew]

Who, in this story, did or is doing the most stupid thing?

1. Phelps, for taking a hit from a bong.
2. The South Carolina authorities who are threatening to prosecute Phelps?
3. The fool who offered his bong to a guy who has the lung capacity of a dolphin.*:eek:


Tip of the hat to Conan!

[2535Miles]

3. The fool who offered his bong to a guy who has the lung capacity of a dolphin.*:eek:


Tip of the hat to Conan!
Dang it AtlBluRew,

You beat me to it! :)

Good show.

[aimo]

is that Kellogg's is dropping their endorsment of Phelps for smoking pot. How much business do you think Kellogg's does in Poptart and Froot Loop sales to stoners?

And now Subway may also end their endorsement with Phelps. Seriously, am I the only one who sees the irony?

[ForeverBlowingBubbles]

It's rumored JFK took bong hits in the oval office...

[allenmurray]

Tony invented sports writers as pop culturists. Tony knows something about that sort of stuff. His best work by far was his weekly commentaries on modern life that appeared each Sunday in the Washington Post's style section.

I am really glad to see that mentioned. I miss that work of his. He is fine as a sportswriter, but I ttink not at the head of the pack. But his non-sports stuff was always great.

[77devil]

Who, in this story, did or is doing the most stupid thing?

1. Phelps, for taking a hit from a bong.
2. The South Carolina authorities who are threatening to prosecute Phelps?
3. The fool who offered his bong to a guy who has the lung capacity of a dolphin.*:eek:


Tip of the hat to Conan!

None of the above. The correct answer is: 4. Michael Phelps for not being absolutely sure there were no pictures.

[greybeard]

I am really glad to see that mentioned. I miss that work of his. He is fine as a sportswriter, but I ttink not at the head of the pack. But his non-sports stuff was always great.

I'm not sure what head of the pack would mean, but as either a straight up reporter of sporting events or as a columnist, I think that Tony is widely and wildly underrated. His skills as a reporter are top of the line. If you listened to him on the radio for years (I did), you would know that his guests were limited to other sports reporters and talking heads; no jocks, former jocks, or coaches. Tony asked terrific, terrific questions, and follow up questions, from an informed and prepared position. He listened to answers and then was spot on in follow up, which in the realm of conventional sports (football, baseball, basketball) partakes in a wealth of knowledge, both historical and nuts and bolts, that takes a back seat to none. He also is a brilliant man. Brilliant, I don't use lightly.

As a columnist, Tony always asked as many more questions, great questions, provocative questions, then he answered. He had his observations and perspectives, but he seems wedded to the tenet that there are always better answers out there, and from their comes his self depricating humor. As smart and knowledgible as he is, and believe me he knows the extent to which he is both, he invites the next guy to take it a step farther.

On those radio shows to me his command of the subject matter and his skills as a communicator and questioner were unsurpassed by any of the reporter and commentator guests that he had on, and he had them all, but I believe that what made them all come, besides the cash (wink, wink) was Tony's steadfast adherence to a tradition, not necessarily tied to his profession, that elevates questions above answers as the path to greater incite.

I respectfully dissent.

[allenmurray]

I'm not sure what head of the pack would mean, but as either a straight up reporter of sporting events or as a columnist, I think that Tony is widely and wildly underrated. His skills as a reporter are top of the line. If you listened to him on the radio for years (I did), you would know that his guests were limited to other sports reporters and talking heads; no jocks, former jocks, or coaches. Tony asked terrific, terrific questions, and follow up questions, from an informed and prepared position. He listened to answers and then was spot on in follow up, which in the realm of conventional sports (football, baseball, basketball) partakes in a wealth of knowledge, both historical and nuts and bolts, that takes a back seat to none. He also is a brilliant man. Brilliant, I don't use lightly.

As a columnist, Tony always asked as many more questions, great questions, provocative questions, then he answered. He had his observations and perspectives, but he seems wedded to the tenet that there are always better answers out there, and from their comes his self depricating humor. As smart and knowledgible as he is, and believe me he knows the extent to which he is both, he invites the next guy to take it a step farther.

On those radio shows to me his command of the subject matter and his skills as a communicator and questioner were unsurpassed by any of the reporter and commentator guests that he had on, and he had them all, but I believe that what made them all come, besides the cash (wink, wink) was Tony's steadfast adherence to a tradition, not necessarily tied to his profession, that elevates questions above answers as the path to greater incite.

I respectfully dissent.

Easy there, I know he is your buddy, but I meant it as a compliment. He is a good sports journalist, maybe even one of the best (I don't read all that many sports journalists so I'll take your word for it). My main point was that his no longer being a general columnist is a real loss. I miss those columns. They were one of the main reasons I was willing to pay $2.50 for a Sunday Post after I no longer lived in DC area (pre-internet).

[greybeard]

Easy there, I know he is your buddy, but I meant it as a compliment. He is a good sports journalist, maybe even one of the best (I don't read all that many sports journalists so I'll take your word for it). My main point was that his no longer being a general columnist is a real loss. I miss those columns. They were one of the main reasons I was willing to pay $2.50 for a Sunday Post after I no longer lived in DC area (pre-internet).

Having pounded my boy in this thread in a way that I'd have taken back if I could have but waited a tad too long, I seized on your post to make amens.

Tony would say, has said, that news reporting and commentary in print are changing art forms, and not for the better.

What I think is wildly misunderstood is the extent of Tony's command and insight into the sports he covers. Not as someone who played them, who knows the techniques (many of which are ever changing) used to run a sweep, or execute a particular block. Nope, they are not his thing. Nor, if we were all real honest, not ours either. (BTW, different defenses and offenses, whether and when and how to hit the cutoff man, important things about what makes or detracts from effective play on the Court, if you listened real good, as I did over the years to T on the radio, you'd have been real surprised; I was. I ain't testifying based upon some inside info about what Tony knows or not; just as a listener to the best sports radio show I ever heard).

I don't watch Monday night football much (now there is an understatement), but when I have and have listened to Tony do a little piece that begins with something like, "I grabbed hold of coach X for a few minutes this week, and asked him about Y and this is what the guy said.") People who don't listen to this stuff and soak it in are not the sports fans that they think they are. To me, those pieces get to the very nub of an important, if not central issue that coach X needs to confront concerning his team or the contest at hand, and Tony's succinct reporting is choke full of the meat of the matter. In the 20-30 or 60 seconds he has, these pieces are brilliant reporting. You do not get that anywhere else. What you get is some ex-jock's overanalysis of whatever, or some sideline version of reality television. I find both annoying, especially the latter.

Those columns were unbelievable, allenmurray. I got my copy of Pumping Irony right next to the thrown; sometimes it tempts to go there whether I need to or not. :eek:

[greybeard]

Oh, if you really would like my views about Phelps, they are this:

1. I think he is a great swimmer.

2. I think that it is ridiculous that a guy makes tens upon tens of millions of dollars because he is a great swimmer. Beyond ridiculous, obscene. But, hey, is America a great country or what?

3. Do I think that his smoking weed was bad? No. (Is it because I like the drug, no, because I don't and never did, not that I didn't try to acquire a taste for it, wink, wink).

4. Do I think in his heart of hearts that Phelps cares that Kellog cancelled his contract? No. Neither do I.

5. Do I think that Phelps was at the party only to smoke dope? Nope? Do I think that that also occurred to Wilbon? Yeap.

6. Why did Wilbon in discussing Charles Barkley's problems with the law leave out the little issue that he was arrested while in the company of two prostitutes, as the three were heading in his car behind some closed up building?

Are there really any parallels between Barkley's incident and Phelps'. Come on, a married man going behind a building for a twofer with pros. Proportionality, baby, proportionality.

[YmoBeThere]

I'm just curious what his opportunity cost was with the cancellation of the Kellogg's deal.

[captmojo]

If I pick weed, then I'm most assuredly going to pick sugar later. :p

The reefer won't get'cha but that entire box of Chips Ahoy afterward absolutely will. :D

[SupaDave]

Somehow it seems I've wondered on to the stoner thread. Sugar, weed, cereal, pop-tarts, bongs, swimming, retractions, diabetics, Monday Night Football, Tony, Mike, Mike, Chips Ahoy? WTH?

Not really sure where you guys are going with this...