For a loud mouthed guy from Chicago, I’ve been conspicuously silent since Curt Schilling threw his wild pitch the other day. The missus asked me if I could be like that more often … and on stuff that has nothing whatsoever to do with Schilling, or gas station bathrooms in North Carolina. That reminds me: Mets fans, please don’t eat the urinal cookies.
As far as ESPN brooming Schilling, I look at it in kinda the same way the Cubs handled that human IED, Carlos Zambrano; no shortage of talent, but a total friggin’ disaster waiting to happen. And eventually, it did. Ka-BOOM! To ESPN, Schilling had become a problem that had to be dealt with. But ESPN’s real problem is they’ve got too many lawyers, and not enough nuts. What ever happened to “The opinions expressed by whoever are not necessarily those of this station or its management?” Plus, it’s not like he walked onto the Monday Night Baseball set wearing high heels and a pencil skirt to make his point. He reposted a tasteless photo — yes, it was tasteless — on his personal Facebook page, with his own commentary. The hypocrisy at ESPN is staggering. They flush Schilling, but still fawn over serial hole-chaser (of the non-golf course type), Tiger Woods, like he’s the Dali friggin’ Lama.
Still, a really big part of me (no, not the part surrounded by my 44 inch belt) thinks that sportscasters, athletes, movie stars, musicians and the like oughta stick to what they get paid for and keep their friggin’ mouths shut when it comes to other stuff. I mean, just because someone “pretends” for a living, and maybe even got a shinny gold statue for it, doesn’t mean they know ka-ka about global warming. It’s ok that they have opinions, just like everybody else. But using fame to broadcast them is obnoxious. As if all us little people are sittin’ on pins and needles breathlessly waitin’ to hear George Clooney’s thoughts on foreign policy. Clooney oughta concentrate on not sucking as an actor. Likewise, baseball commentators oughta comment on baseball, and stow their wisdom when it comes to health care, the minimum wage and who’s lives matter. Just my 2 cents.
The real crux of the issue here — and why I’m pulling my own “Schilling” — is something no one is talking about. So I’m gonna talk about it, pallie! It’s science; that inconvenient thing that gets in the way of hysteria (and, in my case, going to med school).
I’ll say right here that the sum total of my science knowledge wouldn’t fill a rosin bag. But I know enough to understand why a curve ball curves, what evolution is, and where Pamela Anderson’s body came from. The primary contention in Schilling’s Facebook post — that “a man is a man no matter what they call themselves” — just so happens to be supported by DNA and those annoying little X and Y chromosomes. It is, according to science, biologically impossible to change genders, unless you’re one of those fish I’ve seen on the Nature Channel. Dr Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital says, “Claiming to be a woman when you have the chromosomal and anatomical structures of a man does not make you such. You’re still a man no matter what you think or how you dress.”
And on a totally practical note, anyone who’s ever been to the mens room in a ball park would know why you don’t want men going into the ladies room. Men are notoriously bad shots. It’s like they’re trying to christen the floor! And half of ’em don’t wash their hands after. Think about that the next time you’re at Wrigley and there are 7, beer chuggin’ guys between you and the hawkers. Best get your pretzel in the concours, my friend.
To wrap this up, I’d guess the average person coming unglued over Shilling’s controversial Facebook post, is the same one megaphoning about global warming — and defends the position on the latter by saying science backs them up. My question, then, is this: Why doesn’t science matter in Schilling’s case?
PS. Met’s fans, remember what I said about the urinal cookies.