Giada

Giada De Laurentiis is the host of a cooking show on the Food Network. She reminds me of Natalie Portman if Natalie Portman looked more like a pornstar. Giada is one of many underrated female TV personalities who deserve more attention. Also on this list include: Erin Burnett, Amanda Drury, Jeannie Mai, Reshma Shetty (okay, she's an actress but very underrated), Jenn Brown, and Robin Meade.

Now you can ask and they can tell

This morning, the U.S. Senate repealed the controversial military policy of "Don't ask, don't tell." The vote basically split on party lines (65-31) with eight Republicans joining fifty-five Democrats and two Independents to overturn the ban on openly gay citizens serving in the military.

Looking at this from a civil rights perspective, today's decision is a step in the right direction for anyone who advocates for equal rights in this country. While I don't believe in individuals getting special privileges just because they belong to a certain identity group, I highly support rectifying the existing inequalities in this society so we as Americans can truly say we live in the greatest country in the world (which we do).

This starts with allowing gays to openly serve in the military. No more old wives tales of gays being disruptive to "morale, good order and discipline." Clearly, if there's sexual assault going on in the military, its more likely to be between heterosexual male members and their female peers. To the panic-stricken Americans who think this decision will affect the military's competitive advantage, please get the images out of your head that Carson from Queer Eye for the Straight Guy is going to be enlisting anytime soon. If anything, this decision benefits the already dedicated (gay) soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who have never had the peace of mind to feel fully comfortable with themselves in the very high pressure environments they currently serve. To that, sixty-five senators today made the right decision.

For those senators who did not see eye-to-eye with the movement to repeal (and by extension, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Michael Mullen who under oath voiced their support for the repeal) I at least give them their right to disagree. While there are two sides to every argument, the way ban supporters went about making their case did little more than injure the United States' reputation as a champion of equal rights and toleration. The dialogue that emerged from this debate was at times every much as backwards as the policy itself (go figure). If the ban supporters had legitimate arguments to back up their claims I would cut them a bit of slack. However, this was a sad display by the Republican party, who finally had the opportunity to put some of their antiquated social politics to rest. To Scott Brown, Richard Burr, Susan Collins, John Ensign, Mark Kirk, Lisa Murkowski, Olympia Snowe and George Voinovich, kudos for being on the "right" side of the argument this time. To the thirty-one Republicans who voted no, including a man I admire, John McCain, please come up with a better argument next time so you won't make yourselves look so bitter and intolerant.

It's bad enough we have snotty liberals like Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow telling us how they're right all the time. By voting no on the don't ask, don't tell repeal, Republicans just made the far left look a bit less conceited and much more mainstream. It just seems that the GOP can't find the center when it comes to social issues.

Money doesn't buy you happiness revisited

Maybe a more appropriate title for this blogpost might be "be careful what you wish for."

This morning, Mark Madoff, son of infamous white collar criminal Bernie Madoff, was found dead in his apartment. Mark, 46, committed suicide in his home on Saturday, shortly after sending his wife an email asking her to check on their 2-year old child. The child, who was in the home at the time of the incident, was found unharmed according to investigators.

Mark Madoff was a highroller who benefitted immensely from the money his father stole from unsuspecting investors. Although Mark worked closely with his father and brother Andrew, at the moment there are no legal charges filed against the now-deceased 46-year old father of two.

The news this morning only fuels the intrigue surrounding this real-life drama. Native New Yorkers have seen the story all over the city for the past several months. There seems to be a certain mystique to the rise-and-fall of Madoff. Last week, a personal auction, selling several of Madoff's personal belongings was held, generating quite a bit of interest. Obviously, there seems to be an added element of interest in this story, which has been not only the talk at local watercoolers, but private dinner tables as well.

Outside of New York, the Madoff saga has become the ultimate symbol for Wall Street greed and a microcosm for why the financial system needs to be more tightly regulated. Yes, it's easy to see why this might be the case, but for a lot of people, the story is becoming part of an anti-business crusade that is losing a coherent focus. Madoffs bad, middle class good, but unfortunately it's more complicated than that.

With today's report of Mark Madoff's death, the obvious question of whether his father, who is currently incarcerated for 150 years, can attend his son's memorial service comes to light. Shouldn't a man, despite his wrongdoings be able to bury his son in the ground? There has been precedent for this kind of arrangement as well. So let Bernie Madoff make his peace with his son, right?

Well, the way I look at it, Bernie Madoff was directly responsible for his son's death. Just as he was directly responsible for his son's wealthy upbringing and lifestyle, Bernie Madoff created the problems that would plague his son and lead to his death. Death threats, decaying health, and the dark thoughts that must follow any man who thinks millions of people hate his guts are the reason why two children are now fatherless this morning. The man responsible? Well, he can add eternal guilt to the 150 years he will be spending away from society.

To me, this is not a story that tells us that money doesn't buy happiness. Obviously, money provided the Madoff's with a lifestyle that made them very, very happy. But was their happiness just an illusion? To that, I say most likely not. The only point where the Madoff's fairy tale lifestyle become an all-out nightmare was when the Ponzi scheme went broke and investors began catching onto Bernie Madoff's illegal operation.

What I will say is, above all else, this story warns us to be careful what we wish for. Even if we want oodles and oodles of money, we better visit a genie that at least took business ethics at a graduate school level. If not, bad things are not out of the question. For the Madoffs, the bad things in life have yet to cease. From reading the demise of families in certain Shakespeare tales, I would say there could be some more misery yet in store.

Throwback songs used in commercials

I've noticed recently that a lot of commercials these days feature music from decades past. I'll be the first one to admit that this phenomenon is nothing new...actually it's been going on for quite some time and it makes plenty of sense why (older music is more easy to identify, appeals to a larger demographic). What I find interesting about this choice of marketing is the underlying motivation behind its use. Currently, I have a theory that older music is being chosen for new commercials because it gives viewers a sense of nostalgia for times when the country was in a much better state. People associate the mid-twentieth century in the United States with widespread economic prosperity. Companies today can recreate that feeling of economic prosperity (by using classic songs) when consumerism was at an all-time high. Be sure to be on the look out next time you see a commercial playing on TV and you hear that timeless classic from the 50's, 60's or 70's.

The video above comes from Hewlett-Packard's 2010 "Happy Baby" commercial. The song selection comes from Melanie Safka's 1971 hit, Brand New Key. The lyrics go, I got a brand new pair of roller skates, You got a brand new key, I think that we should get together and try them out you see. If you listen to the song or know anything about when it was written, you will hear that timeless feel to it with a little bit of folk melody mixed in (Safka said it reminded her of an old thirties tune). Besides being one of my favorite commercials today, it also plays of the whole nostalgia theme quite well, giving a potentially bland product a unique appeal that transcends reasonable explanation. Why should we want an HP printer because of some addicting song? Well for one, it reminds us of the must-have products Americans started buying in bulk in the mid-twentieth century (luxury home items that soon became necessity home items, i.e. certain household appliances). That's what you call clever marketing my friend.

The John Wall Dance

My favorite dance in sports right now is the John Wall Dance (as seen above). I know it's nothing new, but since Wall has been getting a lot of press lately, I thought it was quite relevant. Basically, Wall holds his arm up looking like he's about to flex but instead he rotates his wrist back and forth creating a showstopping dance move. The move itself is very simple. I think the appeal of the move is how understated it appears to onlookers. The John Wall Dance is easy to learn, fun to do, and looks incredibly suave when performed right. All in all, this move packs a whole lot of punch. Who would have guessed that a guy with a name sounding like he took part in the First Great Awakening could come up with something so addicting?

Here's a video of Wall doing his thing as a freshmen at Kentucky. A small shoutout must be given to Dorrough for providing the catchy background music.

Hillary 2012? Would she be a better fit than Obama as president?

I know Hillary Clinton is a very divisive figure in the world of politics. Ever since the end of her husband's presidency, Hillary has rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. Her polished presentation (maybe too robotic in many people's opinions), ambition for power (seriously, Senator of NY?), and familiar last name (for those political dynasty-haters) have created a strong anti-Hillary movement. I myself must admit that Hillary has never been my cup of tea (maybe you could guess by my moderate conservativeness). After seeing her campaign in 2008 fail miserably, I felt pretty good about not having to worry about Hillary ever moving back into the White House.

With the state of affairs in this country today, I've given a lot of thought to who the future leaders of this country should be. Being someone who values moderate political actors (I like politicians who can stand up to their own party. After all, parties are more about themselves, not so much about everyday citizens), I've never been a big fan of both the far left or far right. Even though I consider myself a moderate conservative (on economic issues primarily), if the Republican party nominates a partisan, far right candidate I do not support, I will simply not vote for him. What matters to me most is that we have elected officials who will focus on the country's most pressing issues (not waste 15 months of dialogue on comprehensive health care) and be able to reach out to the people in order to gain support for legislation. Lately, even some Democrats are reconsidering if Obama was the best person to do that.

Like I mentioned in a previous blog post, I deeply respect Obama and admire the way he deals with criticism and the thoughtfulness he puts into most of his decisions. It's not Obama's fault this country is dealing with huge spending issues (but he could add to the already existing problems by further indiscriminate government spending) and unemployment is so high. There are serious flaws in our economy (we need to be innovative and take the lead back in manufacturing, exports) and society (the brightest young minds are not going into fields where they can even the playing field with foreign competitors) that have been brewing for decades. Americans became content with living in nice suburban homes and driving nice SUV's. Soon enough, other nations caught up as we lost our edge and jobs were lost in the process. The real change Obama should have been making tangible to the public mind was the change in attitude of competing with fellow Americans to an attitude of competing with the rest of the world. I'm not saying Obama didn't have this focus in mind, I'm just saying the discourse was too broad that many of his supporters used the message of change to give hope to their own selfish pursuits rather than to revitalize the world's greatest economy.

So what does this have to do with Hillary?

Reading a recent Washington Post article by Dana Milbank, I found myself envisioning what a Hillary Clinton presidency might look like. To be honest, this is something I would have been completely against before (prior to 2009), but with Obama struggling to find his niche in the executive role and the Tea Party manipulating elections nationwide, I began to entertain the idea of supporting Hillary in 2012 if she decides to run. Some say she's as liberal as they come, but in reality, I came into the 2008 primaries thinking Hillary was far more conservative than Obama (especially on foreign policy). Either way, the prospect of her versus Obama or a candidate right of the Tea Party assembly line, doesn't seem too bad to me at the moment. Maybe it's just misguided nostalgia for the mid-1990's but I honestly think now might be the right time for Hillary to give it another go.

The 10 Best Linebackers: 2005-2010

Being a Western NY sports guy, the arrival of Shawne Merriman in Buffalo intrigued me quite a bit. Although the Bills are notorious for acquiring players 3 years after their prime (Terrell Owens, Lawyer Milloy, Drew Bledsoe), the team has nothing to lose at this point (actually at 0-7, they still have 9 games to lose).

Even a modest contribution from Merriman would be an improvement over most of the Bills current defensive players. Don't get me wrong, I'm not expecting big things from Mr. "Lights Out", but I'd at least like to see what this guy can do in a Buffalo unifrom when healthy. Remember, this is the same player who finished 3rd in the AP Defensive Player of the Year voting in 2006 (finishing behind Jason Taylor and Champ Bailey).

If you're thinking Merriman can't contribute on the field without steroids, let me just remind you that #56 was suspended for steroid use prior to his 3rd place finish in the 2006 Defensive Player of the Year voting. In just 12 games after the suspension, Merriman tallied a league-leading 17 sacks as well as 4 forced fumbles. Knee and calf injuries have plagued Merriman since 2008. Up until that point, Merriman had made the Pro Bowl in all three seasons, including 2 First-Team All-Pro selections and 1 Second-Team All-Pro selection. If Merriman's legs can hold up, Buffalo will be getting an All-Pro linebacker whose still only 26 years old. For a team lacking a dominant pass rusher, this just might be what the doctor ordered.

Since I've already given you a little blast from the recent past, I thought why not come up with a list of the 10 Best Linebackers from 2005-2010. I guess this list is tailored to put Merriman on it at some point (because Merriman was drafted by the Chargers in 05') but I carefully constructed it to be as fair as possible.

1. Ray Lewis, Baltimore Ravens. The guy has been selected to eleven Pro Bowls in fourteen seasons. He doesn't every seem to fade away either. His Week 2 tackle against Darren Sproles in 2009 epitomized Lewis' career: always knowing where to make the right play at the right time. His technique is flawless.

2. Patrick Willis, San Francisco 49ers. Has made the Pro Bowl in every year since he was drafted in 2007. Also won Defensive Rookie of the Year. In his rookie season, Willis record 20 total tackles, 2 sacks, 1 forced fumble and 1 pass deflection against the Bucs in Week 16.

3. Brian Urlacher, Chicago Bears. Until injuries started to derail him midway through the 2008 season, a case could be made for Urlacher as the best linebacker from 2005 up until mid-2008. Urlacher won Defensive Player of the Year in 2005 and led his team to the Super Bowl in 2006. One play that will always endure in my mind is a play Urlacher chased down Michael Vick from behind in a primetime game in 2005. 

4. Demeco Ryans, Houston Texans. With Brian Cushing's controversial and explosive year in 2009, many forgot about Ryans, the heart and soul of the Texans defense. Ryans was named 2007 Defensive Rookie of the Year and has made two Pro Bowls in four seasons.

5. Joey Porter, Arizona Cardinals. If you asked Porter, he would be #1 on this list. A four-time Pro Bowler with 92 sacks in 11 seasons, Porter certainly deserves to be on this list.

6. James Harrison, Pittsburgh Steelers. Didn't see much playing time until 2007. From that point on, Harrison has made a major impact on Mike Tomlin's defense. Harrison won Defensive Player of the Year in 2009 and made the game-changing play in the Steelers Super Bowl win against the Cardinals the same year.

7. Lofa Tatupu, Seattle Seahawks. He made the Pro Bowl his first three years in the league. After missing all of 2009, Tatupu is looking like his usual self again this year.

8. Shawne Merriman, Buffalo Bills. Back in his "Lights Out" days, he left nothing on the field.

9. Mike Vrabel, Kansas City Chiefs. A versatile linebacker who was an integral part of the Patriots dynasty in the 2000's. Maybe his name looks like it shouldn't be on this list, but Vrabel was one of the constants on a defense that won 3 Super Bowls.

10. Jon Beason, Carolina Panthers. Because he came out the same year Willis did (see #2) Beason is often overshadowed when people discuss talented young linebackers. Beason has played in two Pro Bowls in three years and finished runner-up to Willis in Defensive Rookie of the Year voting in 2007.

Petreaus-Pawlenty 2012: A likely win the Tea Party wouldn't let happen.

Does the Tea Party like winning or does it just like to be provocative? In less than two years, we will find out the answer to that question when the 2012 presidential election is held. Even before then, Tea Partiers will have an incredible amount of influence in choosing who the 2012 Republican presidential nominee will be. Judging from its power grab in the 2010 midterm elections, the Tea Party will back one of their own (probably Sarah Palin) and try as best as they can to undermine the support for a more centrist candidate.

This is foolhardy in my opinion. If the Tea Party really wants to remove President Obama, they should do so using a realistic approach. If Palin wins the nomination, she will garner no across-the-aisle support (McCain had some support from Democrats from older voters in 2008). On top of that, her image cannot be resuscitated among independents. 2008 did too much damage to the Palin brand. Unless the country bends backwards before 2012, independents will want nothing to do with Mama Grizzly.

Unfortunately for those non-Tea Partyers who want an alternative to Obama, the Tea Party will likely decide who that challenger will be. Qualified candidates from the Republican party will be pushed aside or more likely decide not to run at all because of Tea Party bullying. What we won't see in 2012 is what happened in 2008: a moderate Republican winning the Republican nomination. Sorry moderates, but your place in the party is being hijacked. 

So expect a Tea Party-backed candidate in 2012. Although it's a wide-open field with plenty of time left until the race, the likely front runners look to be Palin and Mike Huckabee at this point. Too bad, because a ticket with General David Petreaus would have been a sure win for Obama opponents. If 2012 becomes an election year about national security (which I think it very well may become), no one would shine brighter than Petreaus, the greatest military figure of his generation. Pair him with Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty (a guy with bonafide executive experience and success) and you have yourself a dream ticket for 2012. 

Too bad Petreaus will likely never enter the political arena. With the Tea Party looking over the shoulder of any non-supporter, it looks like many qualified men or women will not throw their hat in the ring. Rather, the Tea Party will only attack the current Republican establishment in hopes of elevating their own status in the national scene. Someone should tell the Tea Partyers that the Thirteen Colonies won the Revolution, they didn't just show up to lose the battles.

CNBC Debate: Mandy Drury or Erin Burnett



I love watching television. There's just something about staring at a screen and believing everything I see on it is so much better than real life. I actually came up with a rule for my TV watching habits about a year ago. The rule goes, if a certain show makes me dumber for watching it, I can't watch. Therefore, no VH1. I do make exceptions however (Jersey Shore, Real World, even though those are on MTV) because the humor in some shows actually makes me more intelligent (in terms of pop culture knowledge).


Recently, I've been glued to CNBC (the channel definitely passes my rule). The programs on the channel follow the day's market and then at night when the market closes, it usually goes to special programming (Biography on CNBC is one of my favorites). In terms of access, CNBC has great interview segments with major business leaders around the world. Their TV personalities are extremely knowledgable and know how to play the part as well as look the part.


Any casual or serious viewer of CNBC will notice the undeniable sex appeal of their female anchors. Perhaps they've caught onto the trend that sex sells (tried and true since the Stone Ages) because many of the veteran personalities have been "sexing" it up as of late. A key example is Erin Burnett (pictured above on the right). Burnett is a 34-year old former businesswoman who co-anchors Squawk on the Street. From her background, one might not expect Burnett to be your typical knockout. She graduated from Williams College and worked as a financial analyst for Goldman Sachs before moving into media. If you check her out from back in the day, you will certainly notice Burnett has a very "cute" look, but not necessarily a "sexy" one.


One of Burnett's colleagues is named Amanda Drury. Mandy, as she is affectionately called, hosts several shows on CNBC. A recent addition, Drury comes from the Land Down Under, graduating from the University of Melbourne and working for CNBC Asia before her arrival in the states. As opposed to Burnett, you can tell Drury has always been the hottest girl in the room wherever she is. CNBC execs are not shy about letting Mandy go on the air with suggestive clothing (pictured above on the left) and male viewers (and some female I'm sure) probably don't mind to say the least (my friend and fellow blogger informed me how his office does not allow his coworkers to watch CNBC anymore because anchors like Drury are too distracting and decrease productivity).


Burnett and Drury both are bonafide eye candy. No one can deny this fact. Whereas Drury (imagine the girl pictured above with an authentic Australian accent and incredible business knowledge) is the "I know I'm hot, you can only have me in your dreams" kind-of-girl, Burnett is the girl who has just realized how attractive she really is and wants everyone to know it (the smartest girl you know, who can rock a business suit and make you think she's the coolest girl you know as well). Personally, I really think guys' preference for Burnett or Drury comes down to the classic blonde vs. brunette debate. Most guys I know say, "I'd fuck the blonde, then marry the brunette." What proper language indeed. But to be honest, this is what all guys talk about. Some guys are for blondes others brunettes. Me? I like both, but nobody likes a waffler.


So in the debate that is Burnett vs. Drury, I will have to side with Burnett. Although blondes may have more fun, score one for the brunettes in this case.

Was Obama's 2008 election victory Tea Party-esque?

I admire Barack Obama. I'm not a fan, but I admire him. What I like about him is he has to put up with so much shit, but he still rolls with the punches. The whole religion controversy (Is he Muslim or Christian) and citizenship issue (Is he really an American?) were so contrived that you would expect no one to even entertain their validity. Alas, many Americans were gung-ho about Obama's purported origins and their conviction that he didn't "belong." I don't understand their reasoning but apparently many hyper-partisan conservatives who prefer to add "Hooooo-sane" to his full name do. No wonder Stephen Colbert can write so many jokes by just paraphrasing certain conservative rhetoric.

Despite the appeal of Obama (which I definitely see where it comes from), I don't think it's anything groundbreaking or extraordinary. Obama is an ideas-oriented guy. The Obama speaking-doll would mainly say two phrases: "Change" and "Yes, We Can." His narrative of transforming this nation is where the "Change" slogan comes from. The "Yes, We Can" suggests that anyone (young people, the lower class) can participate. But ask a good portion of Obama voters in 2008 why they voted for him and you will probably hear generic campaign vernacular. This is not surprising. Obama capitalizes on capturing the imagination of his voters through flowery, prophetic talk. You know who else could pull that off? The Old Gipper, Ronald Reagan.


So that leads to the main theme for this post. Did Obama's election victory in 2008 have elements of Tea Party support? Well, to start off, let's just say no one from the Tea Party was going to the polls for Obama in 2008. With that idea out of the question, what the heck am I referring to?


The Tea Party is celebrated and despised for having a lack of political experience and grassroots culture. Therefore, the appeal of their candidates comes from their image as Washington-outsiders yet their flaws lie in the fact that they don't know how to govern. What's interesting about the Tea Party is their lower to middle class background and their previous inexperience with politics. Not to stereotype the group, but the latter characteristic explains why many in the movement don't understand how the government works currently. All in all, the movement's supporters are passionate, hard-working Americans who just started to get involved with politics as soon as the going got tough.

Now take a look at where Obama's support was coming from in 2008. What kind of adjectives would describe them? Lack of political experience (for most young people and those caught in the hysteria of 'Yes, We Can')? How about grassroots culture?

The question is, is it fair for liberals to attack the Tea Party for being a bit misinformed on politics (of course they would be if they weren't in the game until recently) and grassroots in nature? Admittedly, I know the argument against the Tea Party doesn't focus on their grassroots aspect, however, it uses that theme to create the perception that they are a bunch of bumbling Americans without any legitimate voice (they would be legitimate if there were some "intellectuals" in their leadership and therefore their opinions would "actually" matter). But the liberal attitude is don't pay attention to these less-than-average informed voters if they don't agree with liberal policies. After all, they weren't excluding supporters in 08' who could say little more than "We need change" and "Yes, We Can."

CMA 2010 Predictions

The 44th Annual Country Music Awards take place on Wednesday, November 10th. As the most prestigious award show in country music, the CMA's mean a lot to both the artists and the fans. Country music legend George Strait has won the most CMA's in history with 22. The most coveted award, Entertainer of the Year, has been won four times by two men, Kenny Chesney and Garth Brooks. Here are my picks for the 44th Annual CMA's.

Music Video of the Year: White Liar by Miranda Lambert. A fun video directed by the always creative Chris Hicky.

Single of the Year: The House That Built Me by Miranda Lambert. Not my favorite song but you have to respect the genius behind its lyrics.

Album of the Year: Need You Now by Lady Antebellum. From a sales standpoint, no one in all of music has outsold this megahit album.

Vocal Duo of the Year: Brooks and Dunn. A sentimental pick, the soon-to-be retired country vets could wrap up their 15th award in this category.

Vocal Group of the Year: Lady Antebellum. Would love to see Zac Brown Band come away with the award, but Lady A. is too much of a force to be reckoned with.

New Artist of the Year: Zac Brown Band. Why is Zac Brown Band even nominated in this category? How are they new?

Male Vocalist of the Year: Keith Urban. Could be a tossup between the Aussie and George. Urban dominated 2010 in terms of airplay.

Female Vocalist of the Year: Miranda Lambert. The Nashville Star winner has come a long way from her "Kerosene" days. As Taylor Swift continues her pop transformation, Miranda will continue to be the queen of country music.

Entertainer of the Year: Keith Urban. Urban has been a Tour de Force in 2010. Urban won entertainer of the year in 2005.

Welcome to the Young Bull Briefing

Welcome to the Young Bull Briefing. Each post that appears on this blog will touch upon current issues in the areas of sports, business, pop culture and politics. While my opinions are solely my own, I welcome any comments agreeing, supplementing, or challenging my views. I like to think of myself as 70% tell-it-like-it-is truth, 30% political correctness. Therefore, I see no future for myself on NPR.

In terms of where the name comes from for this blog, the best explanation comes from a user-created dictionary called urbandictionary.com. If you follow the link, the second definition on the page is the most applicable. Young Bull is a slang term that describes a younger person of the male gender. Its counterpart, Old Head derives from the same origins. Old Heads are distinguished by an extensive knowledge of the world, a sense of street smarts that Young Bulls do not have yet. It is my belief that we are all Young Bulls constantly striving to be Old Heads. Silly terminology but it's the thought counts.

Now to the topic of the first post...

Being a Yankees fan, I watched the American League Championship Series with a high-level of interest. Unfortunately for the Bronx Bombers, there was a team in the AL with a better overall team, the Texas Rangers. The manager of the Rangers is a man by the name of Ron Washington. In March 2010, it was revealed by Sports Illustrated reporter Jon Heyman that Washington had tested positive for cocaine use in a MLB drug test administered the year before. Washington subsequently apologized to the fans and the media, even offering his team the option to have him resign. The team refused and Washington went on his way albeit he would not escape becoming the butt of several jokes (see picture above).

Now back to the 2010 Major League playoffs. Washington's Rangers, who had previously never won a playoff series in their franchise history, beat the AL East champion Tampa Bay Rays, a team that had compiled the best AL record in 2010. The Rangers' next opponent, the New York Yankees, had won more World Series than the Rangers had even played playoff games. Behind superior pitching and hitting, the Texas Rangers reached their first World Series in their history.

This brings me to the topic of this post. Does winning cure all? It's often been said by sports analysts that sports figures with troubled pasts often are shunned by fans until they can prove themselves when they get back on the field. Maybe Washington isn't the best example but the winning cure all phenomenon certainly exists. To paint a better picture, think about the following athletes: Ben Roethlisberger, Tiger Woods, Kobe Bryant, Ray Lewis, Alex Rodriguez, and Ron Artest. With the exception of Roethlisberger and Woods (but keep their names in mind) all of these athletes went on to win a championship in their respective sport after going through serious issues on and off the field. Did the fans embrace these athletes before the championship was won? Sure. But if there were losses instead of wins would these players still have had the kind of support the following (non-championship winning) season?

Back to the subject of Roethlisberger and Woods. Both are trying to put recent off-the-field misconduct in the past. What will it take for the sports media/fans to get past both their off-the-field misdeeds? If both go on to win championships in their respective sports, all will be forgotten. A new chapter in their books will be written. If their on-the-field performance doesn't stack up, their sins of the past will be made out to be part of some greater force, a bad karma of sorts. Why do sports fans dole out forgiveness in exchange for wins? I'm not saying it's right or wrong, it's just something we as human beings do. And they say sports and social issues aren't connected...