Smoke Away, Air Jordan. Smoke Away.
by Ryan Ballengee on Oct 8, 2009 10:04 AM EDT
20 comments
As you know by now, pseudo-Presidents Cup vice-captain Michael Jordan was admonished and fined $100 by San Francisco officials for smoking on public property. Harding Park was the public property. You know, where they're playing the Presidents Cup.
San Fran Rec & Parks's GM Phil Ginsburg gave Jordan the moniker "Spare the Air" as an allusion to his shoe line that's made him into a near billionaire. (Tiger is a billionaire, even if he plays it down to the media.)
Then, Stew Cink tried to defend what precautions MJ had taken by not lighting his stogie during the practice rounds.
"He’s trying to set a good example for the rest of the people who see on TV what we are doing out there, just try to set a good example and try to chew his tobacco instead of smoke it."
WHOA! Chewing tobacco has been scientifically proven to be categorically WORSE for a smoker than cigars or cigarettes.
Let's get with the program here. Like Charles Barkley, Michael Jordan is not a role model. He is retired. The man can smoke a billion cigars a day for all that I care. And he will happily pay the fine. In fact, he might even burn another Benjamin in the face of San Fran Rec & Parks just to increase his carbon footprint.
0 recs |
20 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Role Models
I know this is kind of tangential to the post, but I usually cringe at the idea that someone famous is a “role model”. Yes, I understand that children like to mimic the behavior of people that they see. But does that give us the right to expect that they “set an example” for others?
I understand that professional leagues and tours have rules on conduct and I don’t have a problem with that because it’s a condition of employment/participation. But to expect people without those contractual obligations to set an example for others is kind of lame. Yes, it’s great if they want to, but if MJ wants to light up all day long and pay the $100, good for him.
Hell, even if he was still active in the NBA and had to live with those conduct rules, it’s still wrong to expect him to be a role model just because he’s well-known. Role models should be people that directly impact a child’s life, not people they watch on TV or read about in magazines that have no idea that the child even exists.
by Double Eagle on Oct 8, 2009 10:22 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Who said anything about being a role model? Stewart Cink said he was trying to “set an example for everyone” (not just kids) about his smoking (or lack of) on the golf course – there’s a law, regulation, statute or something that bans smoking at Harding Park-
I find it disappointing that you condone and say “good for him” for choosing to break a rule (even if it doesn’t make sense). It’s not about the smoking, it’s about the rule – dumb rule or not – I don’t think anyone should be applauded for breaking them.
One of the best things about golf is that we set ourselves at a higher standard – we follow the rules and call penalties on ourselves because it’s the right thing to do – even if some rules are dumb. To say, go ahead and smoke, just flies in the face of the integrity that I would hope most golfers would have.
by red tees on Oct 8, 2009 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just think it is a preposterous law. I have no problem with indoor public property having a smoking ban, but outdoor seems silly. Also, the last time that the Tour played at Harding Park, golf courses were exempt from this policy. They changed it in 2006.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Oct 8, 2009 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know what you’re saying, Ryan, but do you really think it’s right to condone breaking rules because we don’t like them or don’t think they make sense?
Say what you want about Michael Jordan, but at least he respected the rules enough to not smoke his cigar after being told (and fined) that he shouldn’t. Role model or not, I’ve got more respect for that than for the person telling people to just not follow rules they think are dumb. I get your point, though, I’m just not sure I agree with your solution to it.
by red tees on Oct 8, 2009 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that’s totally fair. This is more of just a rant against a dumb law than advocating breaking laws that our society has agreed to :)
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Oct 8, 2009 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, Ryan commented that MJ is not a role model, implying that others are expecting him to be one (which I believe is the case).
Also, yes, we might set ourselves to a higher standard, but it’s not fair to expect someone else to do the same. OK, I get the fact that he violated the law, but let’s not pretend that a law like that is anything but silly. We’re not talking about second-hand smoke issues here. We’re talking about government getting into the area of social engineering. Parents need to educate kids about smoking. But in this day and age, if MJ knows the hazards of smoking and still chooses to do it, then who am I to stand in his way?
by Double Eagle on Oct 8, 2009 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We are all bound to the law, whether or not we think it is “silly.”
by Old Man Par on Oct 8, 2009 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We're not bound by law as much as we're bound by consequences
They can write volumes of laws, but it all comes down to one thing: consequences. If the consequence of breaking a smoking law is a $100 ticket, then how much does society really care to enforce it? If a speeding ticket is $75, how much does society really believe that speed kills? If a ticket for not wearing a seat belt is $42, then how much does society believe seat belts directly save lives?
Have you ever driven over the speed limit or neglected to wear a seat belt? People don’t follow the law because they gave their word they would or because they’re ashamed when they don’t (though sometimes those things happen). We do the “right” thing, because we know it’s right, not because it’s written down somewhere. I don’t steal from people because I know it’s wrong, not because it was codified into law.
When you get into an area where a person doesn’t think doing something is morally wrong, then the only factor is consequences. If I were inclined to smoke cigars and I were worth hundreds of millions, I would pay the $100 fine all day long. If they actually wanted you to not smoke, they would make the consequences outweigh the desire to smoke, or just outlaw it altogether, just like they do with actual crimes. No, they simply like the revenue rolling in $100 chunks and the appearance that they’re all about saving people’s lives.
by Double Eagle on Oct 8, 2009 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My comments were not about smoking...
or being a role model, it’s about respect for the rules. And I think it’s absolutely fair to expect people who choose to be a part of a city, group, or organization to respect and adhere to the rules.
It was refreshing to see Mr. Jordan choose not to smoke after being advised of the rules (as I read in the entire article).
by red tees on Oct 8, 2009 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Respect for rules is subjective matter. What if Rosa Parks had just sucked it up and sat in the back of the bus? Where would the United States be today?
In no way am I trying to compare this situation to that one. I’m only pointing out that the idea that rules are rules and must be obeyed is not absolute, and in fact is exactly the opposite of what should happen in some cases.
If I want to be a part of a group or organization, then it’s sensible that I should follow the rules because I know exactly what I’m signing up for, and the group or organization is free to expel me for violations.
But when we talk city, state, and nation, we’re talking about things that are not so clear-cut. I don’t approve of laws like this and performing an act of civil disobedience is always an option – if I’m willing to accept the consequences to make a statement. MJ chose not to, but if he had, then I would applaud him, unless of course I thought the law was just.
by Double Eagle on Oct 8, 2009 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Role Model? Look No Further Than This Guy
I too cringe when I see and hear sports guys labeled “role models.” Yes, many if not most are good guys, and of course they are excellent athletes. At the end of the day, however, sports is merely entertainment and if there is too much of something in this old world, it is entertainers.
That’s why I always have looked up to men like this as REAL role models that kids could emulate:
http://www.math.duke.edu/~petters/
Dr. Petters came from nothing in a depressed Caribbean country, studied hard, came to the US and made something out of himself. In fact, his contributions exceed his revolutionary discoveries. He now has set up a school in his native Belize to educate youngsters there, and to give them a head start in the surest way out of poverty: an education.
That man is a hero, and he is a role model. Michael Jordan, a man who was great in basketball, not so much. Jordan’s problems with his gambling and his zipper are also legion, and those factors alone should take him off of the shelf of so-called “role models.”
by Old Man Par on Oct 8, 2009 11:46 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Not a role model ?
Are you KIDDING ?? Do you know how many millions of people STILL look up to MJ ? Retired or not – he is a huge public figure. Luckily, he behaves like a gentleman, obeys the law (even the stupid ones they make up in San Francisco), and, for the most part, lives up to the expectations of kids around the world.
Barkley denies his role model status, which is a shame, because he, too, lives up to a lot of high standards in his own life.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Oct 8, 2009 12:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Love that pic. The man is a role model for 3 person conga line wannabes everywhere.
by NiceBallz on Oct 8, 2009 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ultimately, being a role model or not isn’t a conscious choice made by an individual. It’s made by the person doing the admiring. MJ has no role in determining who looks up to him or doesn’t. But, it is his choice to act how he wants – be it with a halo over his head or a stogie in his mouth (or both).
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Oct 8, 2009 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well said
I agree completely.
It’s unfair for people to try and hang that around his neck or anyone else’s for that matter. If parents don’t approve of the way that a famous person acts, then it’s up to them to educate their children that improper behavior is improper and that celebrities are regular people, not necessarily people to be idolized.
by Double Eagle on Oct 8, 2009 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that we all make choices as to who we look up to – ulitmately, to me, because of humanity there will never be a person that’s perfect to look up to, but the good news is that we can take the best of what we see and emulate that and take to heart the worst that we see and try to do better.
by red tees on Oct 8, 2009 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with you saying that a person doesn’t normally make a decision in their life…“hey – I think I want to be a role model !”. However, when a person becomes a public figure with the attention and, most times, the cash that goes along with it – society hopes that these people will behave in a way that will encourage younger people to behave in a similar way that is good for society. Being a role model doesn’t make someone perfect – Barkley got into fights and tossed a couple of guys through plate glass windows…Jordan had marital problems, and did a little gambling in the casinos…but they GENERALLY got along with and respected people.
Like it or not – there IS a responsibility to power and wealth and fame.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Oct 8, 2009 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Only if...
…you believe it’s your right (or the right of society) to impose that responsibility on another human being simply for being in possession of money or for being known by many people.
Calling someone a public figure and saying that they have a responsibility to act a certain way is code for saying, “You should act the way I think you should act.” If you wouldn’t impose that on some average unknown person, then it is not moral to impose it on someone else who happens to be wealthy or famous, implying that they somehow have no right to behave the way they’d like to behave.
If they violate the law, then they should be punished just like the average Joe, but they should have no more or less responsibility to society than I do.
You say, “there IS a responsibility to power and wealth and fame” and I say that if it exists, it’s only because you say it does.
by Double Eagle on Oct 8, 2009 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s not a matter of someone having a “Right” to someone else’s behavior – it’s one of those things that go with polite society. (“with great power comes great responsibility” isn’t a line that originated in the Spiderman movie)
I didn’t say pubilc figures HAVE to behave a certain way – I said that society HOPES they behave a certain way.
Couldn’t agree with you more – the law is the law and is SUPPOSED to be blind to social status…sure would be nice if it was that way all the time.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
by courtgolf on Oct 8, 2009 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Waggle Room
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
