Luther Campbell, yes THAT Luther Campbell, for some reason gets the opportunity to write for the "Miami New Times." I've never heard of this paper, and I have covered Luther here a couple of times before, but he seems like he covers a mix of sports and social issues in his writing. One sports issue that Luther felt like tackling was that of David West opting-out of his contract with the Pacers in order to take a lot less money and join the Spurs. West wants to win an NBA title. That's fairly clear. West isn't the first athlete to take less money to chase a championship, but Luther thinks he needs a psychologist for making this decision. Nevermind a few Heat players took less money than they could make on the free agent market to join the LeBron/Bosh/Wade chase for titles (including some of those three players taking small pay cuts to team up). That doesn't really seem to faze Luther Campbell because these players didn't pass up as much money as David West did. Somehow, Campbell also blames Gregg Popovich for West choosing the Spurs and seems to think Popovich should have acted in West's best interests and refused to sign West. It's all confusing. I think maybe Luther Campbell needs the psychologist.
Veteran NBA forward David West has lost his mind.
And it's Luther Campbell's job to help West get his mind back.
The 34-year-old former All-Star just pulled off the craziest free agent
move in sports history by taking a gargantuan pay cut to play for the
San Antonio Spurs.
David West has earned $87 million in his career so far. I know everything is about money, but it's not entirely crazy for West to take a pay cut in order to try and win a championship. Plus, there are worse things than being coached by Gregg Popovich. It would have been crazy if West were still in the prime of his career and decided to take a huge pay cut while signing a long-term contract in order to win a title. West is 34 years old and wants to win a title. He's earned $87 million in his career. Crazy, this is not. Yearning to win a title after he has made his millions? Yes.
West opted out of the last year of his contract with the Indiana Pacers,
leaving $12.2 million on the table. Believing the Spurs give him the
best chance to win the NBA title that has eluded him for 12 years, West
signed with San Antonio for the veteran’s minimum of $1.5 million.
West is only making $1.5 million this year. That's it! How will he afford to feed his family on that type of money, assuming he has blown every other dime he has made in his NBA career of course? I don't know David West's finances, but I'm assuming a guy who chooses to forgo more money to win a title is probably pretty good with managing his money as well and isn't poor.
“At this point in my career, I just want to win,” West told Indianapolis TV station WTHR.
Absolutely insane.
Most of the reaction from the sports media has been positive, praising West for putting competition above compensation.
This praise comes from the fact that West has earned his money already. He wants a ring. I don't know if I would take less money to win a title, but I also haven't come as close as West has to making the NBA Finals without actually making it.
He’s really being a fool.
If only West was a grown-ass man who was capable of making his own decisions and didn't need ex-rappers to question his sanity.
This is not the same as Ray Allen, LeBron James, Dwyane Wade taking pay
cuts to win a title together. Sure, they took reductions, but nothing
out of this world like West.
West took a $12 million pay cut according to Luther Campbell. It doesn't appear Campbell is too good with the math. The Pacers were offering $12 million and West took $1.4-1.5 million to play for the Spurs. He took a $10.5 million pay cut to play for the Spurs. Ray Allen took a $7 million pay cut to play for the Heat. Not that I expect Luther to spend his precious time doing research, but Ray Allen took a large pay cut to play for the Heat, so what West did was very close to being the same as what Allen did. I know Luther Campbell would prefer not to deal with reality, but what West did is like what Allen did.
The NBA Player’s Association needs to step in and investigate how the Spurs pulled off the steal of the free-agency period.
Actually, I think I could do some investigation into this topic to see what malfeasance has been going on. (Bengoodfella takes five seconds to copy and paste a comment from David West)
Oh, now I see how the Spurs pulled this off. Here is the evidence on how the Spurs did this. I warn you, it is salacious. Here we go...
“At this point in my career, I just want to win,” West told Indianapolis TV station WTHR.
OH MY GOD, SAY IT'S NOT TRUE! The Spurs pulled this off by convincing David West he wanted to win an NBA title. I'm sure Adam Silver wouldn't have the balls to investigate the Spurs for this, but he should. Silver will just protect the favored members of the NBA fraternity like Gregg Popovich and Tim Duncan, but the Spurs should be punished harshly for using mind control to convince West he wants to win an NBA title.
San Antonio’s head coach Gregg Popovich, a former player who knows how
grueling an NBA season can be, should be ashamed of himself for allowing
West to make such a ridiculous decision.
How dare Popovich allow a grown man who is also a millionaire make a decision for himself! It's intriguing to me how Luther Campbell has somehow managed to turn a decision made by an NBA player into the coach of an NBA team manipulating that player. West states why he took less money, yet that's not good enough for Campbell. Why would Popovich be ashamed of himself for putting together the best team he is able to? He's supposed to apologize for being a great head coach and the result being that veteran players want to play for him?
He took advantage of West’s emotions.
Yes, Popovich took advantage of West's emotions by convincing him that he wanted to win an NBA title and accept less money to do so. It sounds like Popovich and the Spurs didn't have to do much except make the contract offer. The idea the Spurs took advantage of West is just hilarious to me. NBA players are capable of making their own decisions about where they want to play the sport of basketball and it's not like West will play for free. He's still getting paid for his services.
After taxes, West will probably clear around $600,000. And he still has to pay for the cost of living in two places.
Well, I don't believe there are any state taxes in Texas, so that helps.
It’s not like he’s just going to sell his house in Indiana in one day.
Luther Campbell is simply concerned about the real estate market in Indiana. How can West get the money he put into the home back? David West needs a psychologist because he expects to sell his house in this Indiana real estate market!
Also, as I detailed earlier, David West has made $87 million in his career. Who the hell says he is moving away from Indiana? Why would he have to move to play in San Antonio? Couldn't he just rent an apartment during the season? Somehow Campbell's argument for West being crazy is starting to lean more towards Campbell being the one who needs a psychologist. Why does it matter if West can sell his house?
Has anyone ever seen an NFL, NBA, or MLB owner cut into their profits to
give breaks to poor people who can’t afford to attend games? No.
Yes, but David West could not have joined the Spurs if he had not taken a pay cut. This wasn't a move driven by the Spurs ownership wanting David West at whatever cost, but a move driven by David West to take a pay cut. The Spurs don't really get a break by having David West take the veteran minimum because they weren't going to be able to spend the $12 million it would take to sign West at market value. So this isn't like owners cutting into profits to give a break to poor people who can't attend games, because the Spurs weren't spending money on West if he didn't sign for close the veteran minimum.
West needs a psychological evaluation. When an athlete kisses $11
million good-bye without thinking about his future is a prime example of
why he will end up broke.
Man, that's a bit harsh. So Luther Campbell is arguing (relatively incoherently by the way) that David West, who has earned $87 million in his career, is going to go broke because he's "only" playing for $1.5 million this season. Other than evidence he needs a psychological evaluation, couldn't this be proof that West has thought about his future and has saved up enough money to where he CAN go play for the Spurs for $1.5 million? Maybe this isn't a sign he will go broke, but a sign he isn't going to go broke.
When West retires, he is not going to find another job that pays hims more than ten million dollars a year.
Unlike all of those other athletes who retire and immediately find jobs that pay them as much as they earned during their playing career? What planet does Luther Campbell live on? What, Bimbo Coles retires and then finds a job that pays him $2.2 million per year? This is something Campbell really thinks happens?
I don't know how Campbell has earned the opportunity to write anything down in a newspaper and be taken seriously, but "Player takes pay cut to win a title" isn't even close to being correlated to "Player goes broke because he spends too much money."
That’s when he will regret it.
Maybe he can pawn his championship ring for cash at that point.
Showing posts with label luther campbell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label luther campbell. Show all posts
Saturday, August 8, 2015
Saturday, November 29, 2014
4 comments Luther Campbell Says Adrian Peterson Is Not an Evil Dad, He Was Just Raised To Be One
Some people spank and punish their human babies with violence and other people do not spank and punish their human babies with physical violence. My feeling is if parents want to use corporal punishment on their children, that is their right as a parent to do. If a parent doesn't want to use corporal punishment on their children, that is their right as a parent not to do. There is a line though. For example, anyone who harshly disciplines a one-year old is a fucking moron who deserves to be hit in the head with a 2x4 repeatedly. One-year old children do not understand anything about the world. They shit their pants, they drool everywhere, and think anything they see, including potentially a cat or a remote control, is best served to go into their mouth if they can only find a way to get to it. Harshly disciplining a one-year old is like smacking around your 95-year old grandfather because he won't stop talking about Larry King WHEN EVERYONE KNOWS LARRY KING ISN'T ON TELEVISION ANYMORE!
There is also a limit to how much a child should be punished or spanked. I got the belt once and spanked a few times. I was not one-year old, so I got the point. Anything more than that and you are probably just taking your aggression or frustration out on your child. What Adrian Peterson did went beyond punishing his child and seemed to make him guilty on the charges of child abuse that were brought against him. I understand not everyone likes it, but there's a different lesson being given when a child has welts all over his/her body and genitals. That lesson is "Daddy/Mommy are pissed off about what you did and have no idea how to parent you to stop doing it so they hope to beat it out of you." Again, there is a line and I think Adrian Peterson crossed it. Welts on multiple parts of the body is crossing that line.
So anyway, Luther Campbell says Adrian Peterson isn't evil (which I agree with, though what kind of moron harshly punishes a one-year old? Reggie Bush is evil if you ask me), it's just how he was raised. Fantastic. I get it. I understand. Say I was raised to hit women when they wouldn't agree with me and take pleasure in having sex with farm animals. Does that excuse that behavior? It sounds extreme, but it's really not. Peterson was raised to get whupped and so that's how he treats his children. Fine, I get it. It doesn't excuse what he did to his son and doesn't make him evil. It makes someone who doesn't understand what child abuse is. Now he does. The justice system works. But still, Luther Campbell has some thoughts on the issue.
Many people are shocked and disgusted by the alleged abuse Minnesota Vikings star Adrian Peterson inflicted on his 4-year-old son.
Roger Goodell was originally not disgusted, but then he saw the picture of the welts, and realized it was in his best interest to be disgusted.
He's been indicted in Montgomery, Texas, for reckless and negligent injury to a child because he whupped his son's backside with a switch, leaving the boy with open wounds and large welts on the back of his legs.
It seemed excessive. It seemed especially excessive in my opinion considering that Adrian Peterson had a son pass away from being assaulted by an adult. One would think Peterson might go a little easier on his son for not turning off "Max and Ruby" since he had a son die from being hit repeatedly. One would think wrong.
But before he's convicted in the court of public opinion, folks need to understand how Peterson was raised.
Before you say, "here's how he was raised," you need to understand the laws about child abuse. Laws >how Peterson was raised.
I don't know many African-Americans who grew up without ever being disciplined with a switch or a belt.
No, no, no, no. You are not taking ownership of this as a "black thing." It is not. I got hit with a belt and my friends got hit with a belt. I had a friend whose parent ripped off his belt so hard to spank him that the clip of the belt caught my friend right above the eye and opened up a gash. It is not a "African-American issue" that Luther Campbell can take sole ownership off, squeeze tight and then claim "you all don't understand." It is more of a Southern thing than an African-American thing anyway.
Peterson's own mother, Bonita Jackson, admitted in a recent interview with the Houston Chronicle that she was a tough parent. "Most of us disciplined our kids a little more than we meant sometimes," she said. "But we were only trying to prepare them for the real world."
Well, I guess we can consider Adrian Peterson well-prepared then.
I grew up in a household with four brothers. We all got our butts whupped when we acted up. The switch and the belt were used many times. Guess what? We turned out OK.
Okay, great. That's not the point. I know a girl who was sexually assaulted as a teenager and she turned out fine. So does that mean sexual assault is perfectly okay in some cases? You know, as long as the person turns out fine? I know people who had other childhood traumas and most of them seemingly turned out fine. It doesn't mean the act behind the trauma is fine or isn't a crime.
The whole "We turned out OK" reasoning sounds a lot like "That's how we have always done it" reasoning in that they are both used to justify future actions based entirely on the assumptions that past actions were the correct ones. It avoids the attempt at change in favor of clinging to how it used to be, as if there were no other way.
Once when I was a teenager, I sassed my mother after she asked me to open a bathroom window to let out the steam from the shower. At the time, she was on crutches from a leg injury.
Luke's father had hit his mom in the leg with a baseball bat because dinner wasn't ready when he got home. But hey, that's how Luke's father was raised, so who can argue with that reasoning? Because Luke's father was raised that way, this is definitely not a crime.
As soon as I snapped at her, she bopped me upside the head with one of her crutches. After that, I always thought twice before talking back to her
A "bop upside the head with one of her crutches" doesn't sound like anything close to the type of whupping that Adrian Peterson's son got with the switch. Not only was Adrian Peterson's son whupped (it's not "whipped" but "whupped") in several spots on his body, he was hit enough to cause multiple welts.
Time-out doesn't work in the African-American community. If kids were disrespectful, got suspended from school, or were caught stealing, they got the belt as soon as dad got home.
I don't think this is just an African-American thing, but I do think Luther Campbell wants to claim it is so that he can state he has some sort of insight others don't have and his point about Adrian Peterson not being evil will be supported.
Corporal punishment kept us on the straight-and-narrow path.
Maybe, but this is assuming not using corporal punishment wouldn't have kept you on the straight-and-narrow path. I don't know if that is a safe assumption. Again, "We turned out fine" isn't a reason to excuse Adrian Peterson for striking his child like he did with a switch.
But by the time I became a father, laws had changed. I never hit any of my four children,
Exactly. Times have changed and though Luther Campbell grew up getting hit, he chose not to hit his children. It was his choice and Adrian Peterson had a choice as well. He made his choice and now he is under indictment for child abuse. Luther Campbell is an example of someone who broke out of how he was raised and there is no reason Adrian Peterson could not have done the same. It was Luther's choice and he made it. There is no reason Peterson could not have just spanked his son.
but when one of my daughters didn't go to school and was disrespectful, I sent her back to live with her mother.
And really, if the world can't take parenting advice from someone who states when things got tough and his child became disrespectful then he just sent the child away rather than parent, who in the heck can advice come from?
I like how Luther Campbell is like, "I didn't hit my kids, I just got rid of them as opposed to taking the time to discipline them."
Corporal punishment is a cultural norm in the black community based on their Christian beliefs. They take to heart biblical passages like Proverbs 13:24: "He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him."
So Luther Campbell has chosen to stereotype the entire black community by stating not only are they all Christian, they all base their belief in corporal punishment on Christianity, and they all base that belief of corporal punishment on a specific Bible verse. So of course Adrian Peterson can't be wrong or evil, he's basing his actions on the Bible!
(Bengoodfella sees someone who has stolen from a store, then stones him to death and expects to not be charged with murder)
They use a switch to inflict enough physical pain so a child thinks twice about behaving badly, but it is not done with malice.
A good spanking can inflict enough physical pain to force a child to think twice about behaving badly. And get this, there are other non-violent ways to parent a child. I KNOW! Who knew? I don't think Adrian Peterson is evil, but I would have more sympathy for him if parents had not found a way to discipline or punish their child without causing multiple welts on the child's body. But there are other means to reach the ends of punishing a child, and what Peterson did seems to be against the law, so I find it harder to defend him like Luther Campbell is trying to do.
And yes, what Adrian Peterson did to his son was done with malice. Others may disagree, but I find it hard to justify the lengths with which Peterson seems to have struck his son. Let's just say if a police officer did that to a grown adult suspect then there could be a case for police brutality. Instead it was a very strong NFL player who did it to a four-year old child. So.............yes, it was done with malice. Peterson could have gotten his point across with a few spankings or another non-violent way of punishment.
Peterson can use freedom of religion as a defense.
Oh, it turns out that Luther Campbell is an attorney now. He knows what kind of defense Adrian Peterson can use. I don't know why Adrian Peterson hired a white attorney like Rusty Hardin when he could have hired someone smarter than an attorney who knows the exact Bible verse the black community uses to justify corporal punishment. That person is Luther Campbell. Luther won't even charge Adrian Peterson. But can he get a table dance?
His lawyer will put the Bible on the stand.
Now granted, I don't have the legal expertise that Luther Campbell seems to have. I'm pretty sure you can't put an inanimate object like the Bible on the stand to testify though. Only humans can be on the stand during a trial. Perhaps dogs, but it would have to be a really smart dog. Like Lassie. Yes, Lassie could be on the stand. I don't know, maybe Mr. Ed too. He seems like he could have testified if necessary. But neither of them are inanimate objects and I know inanimate objects can not be placed under oath, be on the stand and testify in a trial.
And in a state like Texas, it will be difficult to find a jury that will convict him.
Will it be difficult to find a jury to convict Peterson if freedom of religion is used as a defense? I'm asking because clearly Luther Campbell has a diverse knowledge of the legal system in Texas and I don't live in Texas. It sounds to me like freedom of religion is not going to be a defense to child abuse. If freedom of religion were to be a defense for crimes then a lot of defendants would go unconvicted (not a word), because the Bible contains some violent stuff in it.
So in summary, Adrian Peterson is not evil (didn't say he was). Peterson isn't necessarily innocent of child abuse because he was physically punished as a child, because there are other ways to punish a child without physically harming the child. And because there is a Bible verse that says it's fine to hit your kid, it doesn't mean Texas' child abuse laws have nothing on the Biblical laws that Peterson follows and a court in Texas will definitely fail to convict Peterson. So basically Luther Campbell thinks Peterson's solid defense is "That's how my mama raised me" and "God said it was okay." I can't imagine what could go wrong.
Of course it doesn't matter because Peterson pleaded and now he won't have to worry about going to a jury.
There is also a limit to how much a child should be punished or spanked. I got the belt once and spanked a few times. I was not one-year old, so I got the point. Anything more than that and you are probably just taking your aggression or frustration out on your child. What Adrian Peterson did went beyond punishing his child and seemed to make him guilty on the charges of child abuse that were brought against him. I understand not everyone likes it, but there's a different lesson being given when a child has welts all over his/her body and genitals. That lesson is "Daddy/Mommy are pissed off about what you did and have no idea how to parent you to stop doing it so they hope to beat it out of you." Again, there is a line and I think Adrian Peterson crossed it. Welts on multiple parts of the body is crossing that line.
So anyway, Luther Campbell says Adrian Peterson isn't evil (which I agree with, though what kind of moron harshly punishes a one-year old? Reggie Bush is evil if you ask me), it's just how he was raised. Fantastic. I get it. I understand. Say I was raised to hit women when they wouldn't agree with me and take pleasure in having sex with farm animals. Does that excuse that behavior? It sounds extreme, but it's really not. Peterson was raised to get whupped and so that's how he treats his children. Fine, I get it. It doesn't excuse what he did to his son and doesn't make him evil. It makes someone who doesn't understand what child abuse is. Now he does. The justice system works. But still, Luther Campbell has some thoughts on the issue.
Many people are shocked and disgusted by the alleged abuse Minnesota Vikings star Adrian Peterson inflicted on his 4-year-old son.
Roger Goodell was originally not disgusted, but then he saw the picture of the welts, and realized it was in his best interest to be disgusted.
He's been indicted in Montgomery, Texas, for reckless and negligent injury to a child because he whupped his son's backside with a switch, leaving the boy with open wounds and large welts on the back of his legs.
It seemed excessive. It seemed especially excessive in my opinion considering that Adrian Peterson had a son pass away from being assaulted by an adult. One would think Peterson might go a little easier on his son for not turning off "Max and Ruby" since he had a son die from being hit repeatedly. One would think wrong.
But before he's convicted in the court of public opinion, folks need to understand how Peterson was raised.
Before you say, "here's how he was raised," you need to understand the laws about child abuse. Laws >how Peterson was raised.
I don't know many African-Americans who grew up without ever being disciplined with a switch or a belt.
No, no, no, no. You are not taking ownership of this as a "black thing." It is not. I got hit with a belt and my friends got hit with a belt. I had a friend whose parent ripped off his belt so hard to spank him that the clip of the belt caught my friend right above the eye and opened up a gash. It is not a "African-American issue" that Luther Campbell can take sole ownership off, squeeze tight and then claim "you all don't understand." It is more of a Southern thing than an African-American thing anyway.
Peterson's own mother, Bonita Jackson, admitted in a recent interview with the Houston Chronicle that she was a tough parent. "Most of us disciplined our kids a little more than we meant sometimes," she said. "But we were only trying to prepare them for the real world."
Well, I guess we can consider Adrian Peterson well-prepared then.
I grew up in a household with four brothers. We all got our butts whupped when we acted up. The switch and the belt were used many times. Guess what? We turned out OK.
Okay, great. That's not the point. I know a girl who was sexually assaulted as a teenager and she turned out fine. So does that mean sexual assault is perfectly okay in some cases? You know, as long as the person turns out fine? I know people who had other childhood traumas and most of them seemingly turned out fine. It doesn't mean the act behind the trauma is fine or isn't a crime.
The whole "We turned out OK" reasoning sounds a lot like "That's how we have always done it" reasoning in that they are both used to justify future actions based entirely on the assumptions that past actions were the correct ones. It avoids the attempt at change in favor of clinging to how it used to be, as if there were no other way.
Once when I was a teenager, I sassed my mother after she asked me to open a bathroom window to let out the steam from the shower. At the time, she was on crutches from a leg injury.
Luke's father had hit his mom in the leg with a baseball bat because dinner wasn't ready when he got home. But hey, that's how Luke's father was raised, so who can argue with that reasoning? Because Luke's father was raised that way, this is definitely not a crime.
As soon as I snapped at her, she bopped me upside the head with one of her crutches. After that, I always thought twice before talking back to her
A "bop upside the head with one of her crutches" doesn't sound like anything close to the type of whupping that Adrian Peterson's son got with the switch. Not only was Adrian Peterson's son whupped (it's not "whipped" but "whupped") in several spots on his body, he was hit enough to cause multiple welts.
Time-out doesn't work in the African-American community. If kids were disrespectful, got suspended from school, or were caught stealing, they got the belt as soon as dad got home.
I don't think this is just an African-American thing, but I do think Luther Campbell wants to claim it is so that he can state he has some sort of insight others don't have and his point about Adrian Peterson not being evil will be supported.
Corporal punishment kept us on the straight-and-narrow path.
Maybe, but this is assuming not using corporal punishment wouldn't have kept you on the straight-and-narrow path. I don't know if that is a safe assumption. Again, "We turned out fine" isn't a reason to excuse Adrian Peterson for striking his child like he did with a switch.
But by the time I became a father, laws had changed. I never hit any of my four children,
Exactly. Times have changed and though Luther Campbell grew up getting hit, he chose not to hit his children. It was his choice and Adrian Peterson had a choice as well. He made his choice and now he is under indictment for child abuse. Luther Campbell is an example of someone who broke out of how he was raised and there is no reason Adrian Peterson could not have done the same. It was Luther's choice and he made it. There is no reason Peterson could not have just spanked his son.
but when one of my daughters didn't go to school and was disrespectful, I sent her back to live with her mother.
And really, if the world can't take parenting advice from someone who states when things got tough and his child became disrespectful then he just sent the child away rather than parent, who in the heck can advice come from?
I like how Luther Campbell is like, "I didn't hit my kids, I just got rid of them as opposed to taking the time to discipline them."
Corporal punishment is a cultural norm in the black community based on their Christian beliefs. They take to heart biblical passages like Proverbs 13:24: "He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him."
So Luther Campbell has chosen to stereotype the entire black community by stating not only are they all Christian, they all base their belief in corporal punishment on Christianity, and they all base that belief of corporal punishment on a specific Bible verse. So of course Adrian Peterson can't be wrong or evil, he's basing his actions on the Bible!
(Bengoodfella sees someone who has stolen from a store, then stones him to death and expects to not be charged with murder)
They use a switch to inflict enough physical pain so a child thinks twice about behaving badly, but it is not done with malice.
A good spanking can inflict enough physical pain to force a child to think twice about behaving badly. And get this, there are other non-violent ways to parent a child. I KNOW! Who knew? I don't think Adrian Peterson is evil, but I would have more sympathy for him if parents had not found a way to discipline or punish their child without causing multiple welts on the child's body. But there are other means to reach the ends of punishing a child, and what Peterson did seems to be against the law, so I find it harder to defend him like Luther Campbell is trying to do.
And yes, what Adrian Peterson did to his son was done with malice. Others may disagree, but I find it hard to justify the lengths with which Peterson seems to have struck his son. Let's just say if a police officer did that to a grown adult suspect then there could be a case for police brutality. Instead it was a very strong NFL player who did it to a four-year old child. So.............yes, it was done with malice. Peterson could have gotten his point across with a few spankings or another non-violent way of punishment.
Peterson can use freedom of religion as a defense.
Oh, it turns out that Luther Campbell is an attorney now. He knows what kind of defense Adrian Peterson can use. I don't know why Adrian Peterson hired a white attorney like Rusty Hardin when he could have hired someone smarter than an attorney who knows the exact Bible verse the black community uses to justify corporal punishment. That person is Luther Campbell. Luther won't even charge Adrian Peterson. But can he get a table dance?
His lawyer will put the Bible on the stand.
Now granted, I don't have the legal expertise that Luther Campbell seems to have. I'm pretty sure you can't put an inanimate object like the Bible on the stand to testify though. Only humans can be on the stand during a trial. Perhaps dogs, but it would have to be a really smart dog. Like Lassie. Yes, Lassie could be on the stand. I don't know, maybe Mr. Ed too. He seems like he could have testified if necessary. But neither of them are inanimate objects and I know inanimate objects can not be placed under oath, be on the stand and testify in a trial.
And in a state like Texas, it will be difficult to find a jury that will convict him.
Will it be difficult to find a jury to convict Peterson if freedom of religion is used as a defense? I'm asking because clearly Luther Campbell has a diverse knowledge of the legal system in Texas and I don't live in Texas. It sounds to me like freedom of religion is not going to be a defense to child abuse. If freedom of religion were to be a defense for crimes then a lot of defendants would go unconvicted (not a word), because the Bible contains some violent stuff in it.
So in summary, Adrian Peterson is not evil (didn't say he was). Peterson isn't necessarily innocent of child abuse because he was physically punished as a child, because there are other ways to punish a child without physically harming the child. And because there is a Bible verse that says it's fine to hit your kid, it doesn't mean Texas' child abuse laws have nothing on the Biblical laws that Peterson follows and a court in Texas will definitely fail to convict Peterson. So basically Luther Campbell thinks Peterson's solid defense is "That's how my mama raised me" and "God said it was okay." I can't imagine what could go wrong.
Of course it doesn't matter because Peterson pleaded and now he won't have to worry about going to a jury.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
2 comments So Apparently Luther Campbell Writes a Column
Good things never last. Mitch Williams had a blog and then he got fired and his blog went bye-bye. I've lost Joe Morgan, Jay Mariotti has disappeared, and Rick Reilly stopped writing. But there is hope on the horizon. Now apparently Luther Campbell has a column he writes on a semi-regular basis. Yes, that Luther Campbell of 2 Live Crew. He writes. Hat tip to the reader who only I know by his email address, so I won't hand it out here, for alerting me to Campbell's columns and the specific column he wrote about LeBron James and Michael Jordan. So Luther has taken time away from 2 Live Crew (I'm kidding, I have no idea if he even works with them anymore) to talk about how LeBron James is already better than Michael Jordan. Why? Because. And yes, Campbell is still going by "Uncle Luke" which is starting to seem a little creepier to me as time goes by for some reason. Here is the picture that accompanies this column. 1989 Luther Campbell would not be impressed with 2014 Luther Campbell.
The slightly tilted head with the glasses pulled down with his eyes looking over the top of the lenses. It's uh, very 1990's sitcom-y. Either that or it's very "I'm middle-aged and staring at some attractive co-ed's"-y. Either way the V-neck pullover with the sly smile would probably have 1989 Luther Campbell wanting to beat this guy's ass. He's getting involved in politics in Miami, so good for him on that count. But not good for him that he thinks LeBron James is already better than Michael Jordan. This is an older article, but nonetheless still pretty not good.
Last week, in game four of the NBA Eastern Conference Finals, LeBron James broke Michael Jordan's playoff record for most games with at least 25 points, five rebounds, and five assists.
Best of all-time based on these arbitrarily picked statistics.
As the Heat heads to the NBA Finals for the fourth year in a row, it's time to admit that James has now taken Jordan's place as the greatest of all time. But you will never hear the former-players-turned-commentators admit it.
NO ONE WILL ADMIT THAT WHICH ISN'T PROVEN TO BE TRUE YET!
Guys like Steve Kerr (who recently left TV to coach Golden State), Charles Barkley, Kenny Smith, and Shaquille O'Neal will never give LeBron the crown.
That's only because the crown has to be earned and LeBron hasn't earned it yet. We must protect this HOUSE!
Barkley and friends all played in the Jordan era and are endorsed by Michael. They wouldn't say anything to make him mad.
This is as opposed to Uncle Luke who is totally neutral on this subject since Campbell lives in Miami, has long been affiliated with Miami teams and LeBron played for the Heat at the time. Not that Campbell would take the opinion of a homer while calling out others for their biases. Never.
LeBron has surpassed Jordan in every facet of the game, though. Jordan had to learn to pass the ball, but finding the open man is part of LeBron's instinct since he was winning championships at the high school level.
Jordan's five highest assist totals per game came when he was 25, 26, 28, 21, and 24 years of age. His five lowest assist totals per game came when he was 22, 39, 34, 33, and 32 years of age. So the statistics don't exactly bear out that Jordan had to learn to pass. In fact, it says the opposite is true. Maybe his teammates forgot how to make shots. Out of LeBron's five highest assist totals per game, only one of those seasons was with the Miami Heat. It goes to prove LeBron did have the instincts to pass, but as his teammates got better his assists when down, which also happened with Jordan. That's pretty interesting to me.
More importantly, much of Luther Campbell's case for LeBron over Jordan is based on the fact LeBron is a better all-around player. I think that's true, but it doesn't mean LeBron is better than Jordan...yet.
Every dunk Jordan did, LeBron can do better.
Irrelevant. Though if this were relevant to this discussion, it would also be relevant to point out Jordan went up against the best dunkers of his era in the Slam Dunk Contest and beat them. LeBron has not done that.
He can cover five positions on the court, even center. Jordan couldn't do that.
Shaquille O'Neal can't play any other position but center or power forward. It doesn't mean Shawn Marion is a better player than O'Neal.
Off the court, LeBron is a better teammate than Jordan was. Michael would never have visited a teammate having a poor series to cheer him up like LeBron (and Dwyane Wade) did with Chris Bosh.
In terms of irrelevant points regarding which player was better on the court, how sweet and gentle Jordan/LeBron was to his teammates is up there in terms of irrelevancy. Notice how Uncle Luke is conspicuously leaving out the whole "6-0 in the NBA Finals versus 2-3 in the NBA Finals" thing. It's not fair to judge LeBron based on NBA Finals accomplishments only, but if Campbell is going to drag off-the-court kindness, versatility and dunking ability into the discussion, the record in NBA Finals contests becomes more relevant.
Jordan was always flying out to the casinos or wherever he hung out on his own.
Then coming back and winning games anyway. Carry on...
Now we get to the real reason Luther Campbell doesn't like Michael Jordan and won't consider him the best NBA player of all-time. I'll give you a hint, it has absolutely nothing to do with Jordan's performance on the court and it's personal.
Whenever the Chicago Bulls came down to play Miami during the Jordan era, all the players would come to my nightclub.
Guess who didn't show up to Uncle Luke's nightclub? GUESS WHO? It's a toughie, so I will give you three guesses. Make them NOW, then scroll down.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
The only one who didn't show up was Michael.
What? Such an unexpected turn of events this is! Michael Jordan didn't soothe Luther Campbell's ego, so that's why he isn't the best NBA player of all-time.
Remember back in this column when Campbell said guys like Barkley, Kerr, and Shaq are friends with Michael Jordan, so that's why they claim he's the best NBA player ever? Isn't it possible Campbell is saying Jordan isn't the best NBA player ever because Jordan didn't come to Campbell's nightclub when the Bulls were in town and Campbell is a Heat fan? Maybe? Just a little?
See, Michael Jordan wasn't a good teammate because he wouldn't come to Luther Campbell's nightclub. Only good teammates show up at Uncle Luke's place. Therefore, Jordan isn't a team player.
Jordan never faced the criticism and opinions of ex-players as LeBron has either.
Really? Jordan didn't face the criticism through the many outlets that fans and players have now to express their criticisms and opinions, but he faced criticism. Jordan had an entire book written about what an asshole he could be. Sam Smith wrote that book. Scott Raab wrote "The Whore of Akron" about LeBron. I vividly remember when Jordan wasn't considered good enough to carry a team to the NBA Finals and he wasn't considered enough of an unselfish passer and teammate to make the players around him better. Phil Jackson turned up, Scottie Pippen was drafted, the Bulls surrounded Jordan with good role players and six NBA Finals victories later nobody remembers the negative shit said about Jordan.
Jordan never had to worry about someone like Barkley saying Wilt Chamberlain was the best because he's the only player to score 100 points in one game.
No, Jordan had to worry about everyone saying Magic, Kareem, Larry Bird, Thomas, and other players from his era who had won NBA titles were better than him because they had won multiple NBA titles while Jordan couldn't even get his team to the NBA Finals. But no, I enjoy a little revisionist history where it's pretended that Michael Jordan didn't face criticism about the achievements of other players during his era and their accomplishments compared to his own accomplishments.
Hell, Barkley is the biggest hypocrite. He says LeBron should go back to Cleveland, yet Barkley bounced around teams like a groupie chasing a ring throughout his career.
Barkley played for three teams in his career. Three teams. That's not exactly bouncing around like a groupie throughout his career. But again, Luther Campbell apparently doesn't deal in facts, he deals in hot sports takes.
It's time these hall-of-fame pundits acknowledge LeBron's place in history.
Yes, it's time to induct LeBron into the Basketball Hall of Fame now!
Wait, what? What the hell does the Hall of Fame have to do with whether LeBron is a better NBA player than Michael Jordan? Does Luther Campbell believe Shaq, Barkley, and Steve Kerr are saying LeBron James won't be in the Hall of Fame after he retires? "LeBron's place in history" will probably include induction into the Hall of Fame, who is denying this? I'm very confused, but I'm not as confused as Luther Campbell seems to be.
Last week, in game four of the NBA Eastern Conference Finals, LeBron James broke Michael Jordan's playoff record for most games with at least 25 points, five rebounds, and five assists.
Best of all-time based on these arbitrarily picked statistics.
As the Heat heads to the NBA Finals for the fourth year in a row, it's time to admit that James has now taken Jordan's place as the greatest of all time. But you will never hear the former-players-turned-commentators admit it.
NO ONE WILL ADMIT THAT WHICH ISN'T PROVEN TO BE TRUE YET!
Guys like Steve Kerr (who recently left TV to coach Golden State), Charles Barkley, Kenny Smith, and Shaquille O'Neal will never give LeBron the crown.
That's only because the crown has to be earned and LeBron hasn't earned it yet. We must protect this HOUSE!
Barkley and friends all played in the Jordan era and are endorsed by Michael. They wouldn't say anything to make him mad.
This is as opposed to Uncle Luke who is totally neutral on this subject since Campbell lives in Miami, has long been affiliated with Miami teams and LeBron played for the Heat at the time. Not that Campbell would take the opinion of a homer while calling out others for their biases. Never.
LeBron has surpassed Jordan in every facet of the game, though. Jordan had to learn to pass the ball, but finding the open man is part of LeBron's instinct since he was winning championships at the high school level.
Jordan's five highest assist totals per game came when he was 25, 26, 28, 21, and 24 years of age. His five lowest assist totals per game came when he was 22, 39, 34, 33, and 32 years of age. So the statistics don't exactly bear out that Jordan had to learn to pass. In fact, it says the opposite is true. Maybe his teammates forgot how to make shots. Out of LeBron's five highest assist totals per game, only one of those seasons was with the Miami Heat. It goes to prove LeBron did have the instincts to pass, but as his teammates got better his assists when down, which also happened with Jordan. That's pretty interesting to me.
More importantly, much of Luther Campbell's case for LeBron over Jordan is based on the fact LeBron is a better all-around player. I think that's true, but it doesn't mean LeBron is better than Jordan...yet.
Every dunk Jordan did, LeBron can do better.
Irrelevant. Though if this were relevant to this discussion, it would also be relevant to point out Jordan went up against the best dunkers of his era in the Slam Dunk Contest and beat them. LeBron has not done that.
He can cover five positions on the court, even center. Jordan couldn't do that.
Shaquille O'Neal can't play any other position but center or power forward. It doesn't mean Shawn Marion is a better player than O'Neal.
Off the court, LeBron is a better teammate than Jordan was. Michael would never have visited a teammate having a poor series to cheer him up like LeBron (and Dwyane Wade) did with Chris Bosh.
In terms of irrelevant points regarding which player was better on the court, how sweet and gentle Jordan/LeBron was to his teammates is up there in terms of irrelevancy. Notice how Uncle Luke is conspicuously leaving out the whole "6-0 in the NBA Finals versus 2-3 in the NBA Finals" thing. It's not fair to judge LeBron based on NBA Finals accomplishments only, but if Campbell is going to drag off-the-court kindness, versatility and dunking ability into the discussion, the record in NBA Finals contests becomes more relevant.
Jordan was always flying out to the casinos or wherever he hung out on his own.
Then coming back and winning games anyway. Carry on...
Now we get to the real reason Luther Campbell doesn't like Michael Jordan and won't consider him the best NBA player of all-time. I'll give you a hint, it has absolutely nothing to do with Jordan's performance on the court and it's personal.
Whenever the Chicago Bulls came down to play Miami during the Jordan era, all the players would come to my nightclub.
Guess who didn't show up to Uncle Luke's nightclub? GUESS WHO? It's a toughie, so I will give you three guesses. Make them NOW, then scroll down.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
The only one who didn't show up was Michael.
What? Such an unexpected turn of events this is! Michael Jordan didn't soothe Luther Campbell's ego, so that's why he isn't the best NBA player of all-time.
Remember back in this column when Campbell said guys like Barkley, Kerr, and Shaq are friends with Michael Jordan, so that's why they claim he's the best NBA player ever? Isn't it possible Campbell is saying Jordan isn't the best NBA player ever because Jordan didn't come to Campbell's nightclub when the Bulls were in town and Campbell is a Heat fan? Maybe? Just a little?
See, Michael Jordan wasn't a good teammate because he wouldn't come to Luther Campbell's nightclub. Only good teammates show up at Uncle Luke's place. Therefore, Jordan isn't a team player.
Jordan never faced the criticism and opinions of ex-players as LeBron has either.
Really? Jordan didn't face the criticism through the many outlets that fans and players have now to express their criticisms and opinions, but he faced criticism. Jordan had an entire book written about what an asshole he could be. Sam Smith wrote that book. Scott Raab wrote "The Whore of Akron" about LeBron. I vividly remember when Jordan wasn't considered good enough to carry a team to the NBA Finals and he wasn't considered enough of an unselfish passer and teammate to make the players around him better. Phil Jackson turned up, Scottie Pippen was drafted, the Bulls surrounded Jordan with good role players and six NBA Finals victories later nobody remembers the negative shit said about Jordan.
Jordan never had to worry about someone like Barkley saying Wilt Chamberlain was the best because he's the only player to score 100 points in one game.
No, Jordan had to worry about everyone saying Magic, Kareem, Larry Bird, Thomas, and other players from his era who had won NBA titles were better than him because they had won multiple NBA titles while Jordan couldn't even get his team to the NBA Finals. But no, I enjoy a little revisionist history where it's pretended that Michael Jordan didn't face criticism about the achievements of other players during his era and their accomplishments compared to his own accomplishments.
Hell, Barkley is the biggest hypocrite. He says LeBron should go back to Cleveland, yet Barkley bounced around teams like a groupie chasing a ring throughout his career.
Barkley played for three teams in his career. Three teams. That's not exactly bouncing around like a groupie throughout his career. But again, Luther Campbell apparently doesn't deal in facts, he deals in hot sports takes.
It's time these hall-of-fame pundits acknowledge LeBron's place in history.
Yes, it's time to induct LeBron into the Basketball Hall of Fame now!
Wait, what? What the hell does the Hall of Fame have to do with whether LeBron is a better NBA player than Michael Jordan? Does Luther Campbell believe Shaq, Barkley, and Steve Kerr are saying LeBron James won't be in the Hall of Fame after he retires? "LeBron's place in history" will probably include induction into the Hall of Fame, who is denying this? I'm very confused, but I'm not as confused as Luther Campbell seems to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)