Whitlock on the gay umpire

That part was very clumsy. But if we're going to ask people to open their minds, we're going to have to let them spill a thought now and then. Bowers' apology seemed heartfelt and sincere; he's also feeling heat from the entire nation and he's bound to be defensive. In time he will probably learn the error of that rationalization. Or he won't. But I get the feeling he isn't all that well-versed in the nuances of the diversity debate.

 

Best column Whitlock's penned in a while. I thought Pearlman's was good in a different way. A little airier, but still on point.

 

Another excellent bit of exposition from Jason Whitlock.


Congratulations, sir!

 

I enjoyed the column mainly because I hadn't heard of this incident until now.

One thing that's stickin in my craw, though, is the lede. I know Whitlock's shtick is dealin with items of race, by why even go there with this story? Doesn't the magnitude of the atrocities in this story carry it enough without the interjection of how discrimination of homosexuals isn't much different than the discrimination of African Americans? It just seems so unnecessary to me.

 

Agree with RedHotChiliPrepper on this one, I didn't see the need for the race card to be brought up in this story, either.

Otherwise, a good read, and like a few of you, first time I heard of the story.

 

This may be the most-celebrated piece I've seen on here where it is generally acknowledged that the lead didn't work and, well, the ending didn't work, either.

Takes a hell of a middle to pull that off.

 

So did I. The thread title is gold.

As for the column, it tells an important story, and tells it well. But, yeah, we could do without the racial comparison and the "it's really all about me" ending.

 

Frankly, Whitlock lost me with the second sentence of his second graf: "Denying gay people the right to marry doesn’t equate to denying black people freedom, the right to vote, equal education, etc."

Wrong. Dead fucking wrong. The 14th Amendment was put in place because blacks were being denied their rights, but it applies to everyone who is denied due process and equal protection of the laws. And the gay community is being denied that every day that we're not allowed to marry the person of our choice.

I will say I liked the fact that he got an interview with Brent Bowers and the guy seemed somewhat genuine in his apology. Having said that, the whole "gay hairdressers" thing seemed to play to stereotypes more than I'd have liked.

 

Am I the only one that found it odd that he used the construction f------ (expletive)? No one over the age of 10 doesn't know what word is being dashed out there, so why use it and not use the word Bowers used? (It's pretty obvious what word that is, as well.)

 

How did the Star get their money's worth on this column when it appeared somewhere else?

 

Not enough money in the world to pay me to read a Whitlock column.

Pearlman's piece was quite good though.

 

I'm neither a Whitlock fan nor a basher. I don't read him enough to have any overriding opinion.

I would submit, however, that the good middle can be attributed more to the strength of the material itself than to the writer.