After years of sobriety, columnist returns to the bars

I thought it was an intriguing piece, but as was said earlier, I really would have enjoyed it had it been longer.

Still, I think the column rises above the argument spnited made about its premise.

 

Somebody, anybody, get me a beer.

 

Wow, that was a lot shorter than I thought it would be. Good, but short.

 

You guys picking this column apart are jackals.
Great column with a great point.
Burger is one of the more underrated columnists out there (his stuff isn't as widely distributed, because Charleston is a family-owned newspaper).
It's certainly more interesting and engaging than most of the "March Madness/Cinderella" columns out there.
And for the person who said he doesn't express opinions, how about the column he wrote last year advocating the College of Charleston coach's firing?
Had everything - right down to the athletic director's address and phone number at the bottom of the column.

 

I wasn't ripping him for not expressing opinions. I was saying that he doesn't do it often -- which is true. Nothing wrong with that. But a lot of people prefer their columnists to have sharp opinions more than once or twice a year. Me? I like his style and the fact that he doesn't have a sharp opinion in every column. I like the fact that he's more about telling the story than offering his opinion about it.

 

Fair enough. I wasn't really meaning to rip you - more the people who were picking apart the column, point by point. And I agree that Burger's style is great. When he rips into someone, he means it - as opposed to a Jay Marriotti/Skip Bayless-type screamer who rips someone every day, or so often that their rants lose any meaning and perspective.

 

Exactly. That's why I like him. You know when he's ripping somebody ... it's for good reason.

 

Ken Burger is a good writer and a fun person to be around. Some may remember this Burger classic:

"I love women. I love basketball. I hate women's basketball."

http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A24193

 

Been there, done that.

He nailed it.

A fine piece of writing. We all should be that good. It happens so seldom.

 

Hold on a second. What, exactly, was the point of this column? I read it three times and don't understand why he wrote it. It was a fatally flawed column for so many more reasons than (a) sports bars didn't exist 25 years ago, or they didn't exist in such abundance; and (b) it was too short.

If the point of the column was that he tried celebrating March Madness in a sports bar like so many other people in the area but didn't like it because of his past, that would have been perfectly fine. But his tone was sanctimonious and, frankly, pandering. He threw sports-bar patrons under a blanket, then proclaimed it was a larger reflection of society's lousy mores.

His baggage got in the way of him telling the story. For him, a bar was, and still apparently is, an unsavory place to get drunk. Perhaps it is to him, but not everyone who goes into a bar does so to get wasted (and I don't even like sports bars or, for that matter, drinking to excess). He made the Xavier-Ohio State argument seem as if it wouldn't have taken place without alcohol.

I think he walked into the assignment knowing pretty much what he'd walk out with. He might be on the wagon and living a happy, sober life, but I don't think it's such a great idea for a journalist to tackle something -- especially one with a deep personal attachment -- with preconceived notions.

 

I find it fascinating that the reactions are really all over the place ..

 

It was a personal insight into something we don't think about during March Madness - the connection between sports bars, basketball and drinking. So what if he has notions about the experience? He's a recovering alcoholic. He deserves to have notions just like we do. God forbid he has an opinion about the thing.
And as I said before, it was much better executed than most written-off-the-TV NCAA Tournament columns from this weekend.