The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Really though?

Re: Really though?

sv — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:37:17 -0000

re: the title of this post:

Andrew linked an SNL sketch that was of the same mind.

A quote: "If you're at a party and you see Michael Phelps hitting a bong and your first thought isn't 'hey i get to party with Michael Phelps' but 'hey i should take a picture and sell it to the tabloids' then you need to take a long look at yourself, cause you're a dick!"

Re: Really though?

Howard — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 00:32:17 -0000

My favorite part is the inane news stories that include a paragraph at the end that mentions that Phelps is part of some extra-stringent anti-doping program, like it has anything to do with this. They're both illegal drugs, so they must be the same!

Re: Really though?

d.tafakari — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 11:29:23 -0000

rikyrah said: The only reason this is important is to compare the response to Phelps to Black athletes who have found themselves in similarish situations. When it looked like he was going to skate with nothing happening to him, hell yeah, I was pissed. But, now that he's getting some penalties, it's fine."

In the words of TNC, my reaction to this whole thing was "meh." I couldn't really work up any indignation against Phelps for smoking, and I couldn't work up any disgust at his sponsors for dropping him. Agreeing with rikyrah, I think he should be as punished as any mega famous athlete who gets more money simply for being famous. Take away a cool million or two. But even if his sponsors decided not to give him a financial slap on the wrist, I still would've been okay. Just because they treat one famous white athlete similarly to the way they treat every famous black one doesn't mean they're going to start prosecuting (and stop persecuting) black athletes fairly. Two wrongs don't make them right for the over-zealousness, and it shouldn't appease anyone. imho.

Re: Really though?

Reality Man — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:55:32 -0000

"But then he's being paid millions for his role-model-dom and with that are limitations. If you're going to pocket bank based on your sports prowess and nice-guy image, you don't get to do certain things."

This reminds me of when that one Backstreet Boy went to rehab for alcoholism. They started doing girl on the street interviews with their tween fans and they were like "of course we know they drink. They're famous. That's what famous people do: drink and do drugs." Was anyone surprised Phelps smokes pot? Did anyone see any of his interviews? Pothead all the way. In Japan right now, they're having a scandal over sumo wrestlers smoking pot. Surprise, the world's fattest athletes smoke something to give them the munchies. Kids are smarter than we give them credit for. It's the parents in denial who are the morons who need coddling.

Once I grew up enough my parents started talking to my sister and I like adults and equals, they started opening up a lot more. My dad admitted that he was caught in his late teens by the cops at a concert with pot. Now, even after the recession hit him hard, he's still worth in the high six figures (at least) and has sent two kids through first-tier private colleges without financial aid. Of course, he's lucky he's white and he didn't end up doing time that a black guy would have. That's the issues: not only is the war on drugs an attack on everyone's personal liberty regardless of race, it turns into another excuse to lock up black and Latino men. All the while, we export violence to countries like Mexico and Colombia where underground gangs run the coke market while Marlboro and Miller and Starbucks pay taxes and avoid shooting at each other because they're drugs are legal.

Re: Really though?

too many steves — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:35:32 -0000

Somebody above said: "As a cereal/snack company, Kellogg's has such a broad audience they need to reach that even the spectre of scandal that could affect 5% of their consumers is worth a trimming of Phelps. That's 5% of their revenue."

First of all, "as a cereal/snack company," Kellogg's should know its core customer base is pot smokers. Second, if there are even five -- that's the number 5, not 5% -- Kellogg's customers who are genuinely outraged at this and willing to give up the brand, I'd be shocked. I suspect the number of people genuinely outraged about this are about the same as the number of people who make sincere complaints to the FCC when there's a boob on the tv (that's zero, by the way).

Re: Really though?

TT — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:08:14 -0000

@TNC

23 year-old kid? Really? More like 23 year old adult. Yes, the situation has been blown out of proportion, but I hate how everyone's acting like "boys will be boys" and "kids and will be kids." I'm 18 and I have more sense than him.

And why does smoking pot have so much more of a social stigma than a DUI? In one situation, you're getting high, in the other you could kill someone. I've never gotten that contradiction.

Re: Really though?

MAJeff — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 18:02:37 -0000

Me too. I've known people killed by drunk drivers. Pot users, not so much. Again, it says a lot about our culture (and nothing good) that the pot incites an uproar and a DUI is swept under the rug.

A friend of mine who was a university residence hall director used to say it this way: "I'd rather have a building of stoners than a building of drunks. The drunks run around breaking shit. But with the stoners, if you toss 'em a bag of potato chips, they're happy."

Re: Really though?

The Foulness — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 17:24:20 -0000

How fricking cool would it be to get stoned with Michael Phelps? That would be sweet...

Re: Really though?

Joe Argel — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 16:59:48 -0000

I'm vexxed that noone here mentions the medical benefits of cannabis!?! not too mention the tax revenue it would generate yearly. This would take us out of this GLOBAL RECESSION PEOPLE!!!!

HELLO!!!!!

Re: Really though?

Jordan — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 15:39:24 -0000

@GAPeach7

I'm actually a biochemist, bit I think I'll stick to legal employment for now. However, once we grow up and establish some saner drug laws, I can think of a whole mess of interesting research to do. And no, I'm not talking about deciding what the best food to eat after smoking up is.

Re: Really though?

Carla Girlpants — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:21:56 -0000

I mean, NOT talking about Protect Tha Children.

kinda choking on my points today.

Re: Really though?

Carla Girlpants — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:14:13 -0000

Hugo - are you reading me the way I think you are reading me? Cos I'm talking about Protect Tha CHILDREN here...

Re: Really though?

rikyrah — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:04:07 -0000

The only reason this is important is to compare the response to Phelps to Black athletes who have found themselves in similarish situations. When it looked like he was going to skate with nothing happening to him, hell yeah, I was pissed. But, now that he's getting some penalties, it's fine.

Re: Really though?

Hugo Pottisch — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:01:32 -0000

Carla,

That is why Kellogg's has to be particularly careful.. It is only Joe the Camel and Ronald McDonald who can do whatever they want.

Re: Really though?

Alex Russell — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 13:51:52 -0000

To follow my own advice: The only thing Phelps "did wrong" was to do something that other people disapprove of. That is the only reason it would be wrong. To say that he deserves bad consequences for this reason, for simply doing something that other people don't approve of, is mistaken - unless we make the decision in the same way that the Taliban would. I hope we have disagreements with them.

Law should not punish people who don't deserve punishment; just law does not. So the law should reflect this.

(Meanwhile, to say he deserves punishment simply because he broke the law... well, they had better not give him anything higher than the lowest punishment for jaywalking or anything in America, which would be what the basic fact of breaking a law would be morally worth. Any greater punishment for an act is just, if it is just, because of the nature of the act and the reasons for the law against it, not merely because "there's a law.")

Non-legal Big Consequences, like editorials that say that Phelps betrayed America by doing this, are merely idiotic in proudly failing to actually evaluate the question carefully, or self-indulgent in happily insisting that their disapproving alone actually makes an action evil and immoral. Columnists are free to say those things. And sponsors are entitled to their cowardice, I suppose.

Re: Really though?

Carla Girlpants — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 13:33:19 -0000

Take a look at Kellogg's brand list:

http://www2.kelloggs.com/Product/Product.aspx

Frosted Flakes, Pop Tarts, E.L. Fudge?

Do I have to spell it out?

Re: Really though?

Alex Russell — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 13:32:06 -0000

Aubrey Maturin: Does that mean you would approve if TNC or Andrew or you got fired under those circumstances? Would they/you deserve to be fired? This should not be a matter of "what's the prevailing rule", unless you insist that it should be, which I don't think you should unless you approve of that rule.

Deborah: "Grown up job, grown up salary, grown up consequences for behavior." "I think you should be able to go Right on Red at all stop lights, but that doesn't mean I can evade a fine just because I think the law is stupid, or because many people agree with me. I know what the consequences are for following or evading that particular little rule." The point is to change it, if it should be changed. Do you think that the rules and "grown up consequences" should stay as they are?

I'm not sure what either poster meant, but I (almost) like a decision in support for this nonsense more than a morally flat present-based "being a grown-up is deferring to the urine tests" default. Why prefer that position to a recommendation as to what the right situation would be?

Re: Really though?

Hugo Pottisch — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 13:28:28 -0000

I've tried it once too.. but I've never exhaled... that's my favorite lin regarding all this and I use it too often. We have to stay on the bright and sunny side of all this. Now that racism is not as funny anymore - we need weed to keep comedians alive.. I mean as a topic not a nutrient.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E49Y48AUTG4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fntiAF3OSts

Robin Williams is right too - it's not like Miachel Phelps is working for NASA or something. He is a freakin swimmer. And thanks to him I've realized that weed is actually illegal in many places.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9xpHjTEb_A

Re: Really though?

BG — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 12:24:00 -0000

No, Kellogg's could choose to ignore this silliness. We're talking about weed, not heroin, for God's sakes. 75% of high school kids smoke the stuff or have at least tried it. This is not 1965.

Maybe I should switch from my usual favorite Special K cinnamon pecan to Post shredded wheat.

That might resonante with this paranoid and hypocritical corporate mindset, whose board of directors probably has at least half a dozen alcoholics on it...

America, grow the hell up!

Re: Really though?

Paul D. — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 12:15:51 -0000

The economy is collapsing around us due to greed, corruption and ineptitude.

This is news? This is a distraction to get you to look away from how badly your retirement plan is getting screwed. And the fact that for the last few months, there have been 500-600,000 job losses per month. And the fact that the dollar is weakening/bearing on total collapse. Banks are failing all around us, but that is only reported late on Fridays or over the weekend so as to not cause too much hysteria. But a bong? That's news.

And we're worrying that someone smoked some marijuana?

Where is the news?

This is disgusting.

Re: Really though?

Persia — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 12:09:25 -0000

Stacy, good point about the uproar, though I'm not sure how much it applies to the mainstream press, which I haven't bothered checking out. I'll see if it made "The Soup."

Re: Really though?

Nemo_N — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 12:05:39 -0000

You know what I hate the most about this whole deal? People making both a hero and a villian out of a guy who just smoked pot.

People implying both, that he is a monster for smoking pot and that he proves that it makes you succesful or something.

It is just one stupid habit.

Re: Really though?

mitch — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 12:01:21 -0000

I'm boycotting Kellogg...

Re: Really though?

Stacy — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 11:39:28 -0000

"Again, it says a lot about our culture (and nothing good) that the pot incites an uproar and a DUI is swept under the rug."

I think almost everyone will agree that a DUI is 'worse' than smoking pot. I'm pretty sure that if Michael Phelps had just gotten a DUI instead of this incident, the uproar would be even louder. Don't get me wrong, the double standards are ridiculous. But really, the loudest uproar I've seen regarding this incident are the people that have been in an uproar that its not a big deal. I include myself in that group.

Re: Really though?

GAPeach7 — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 11:30:46 -0000

Is that right Jordan? You know in today's economy efficiency and providing consumers with more bang for their buck is what will keep businesses afloat. You sound like a knowledgeable individual who's done his research, we could use an enterprising fellow such as yourself at the Pharm.....