‘PC Addled Losers’

Posted on Comments

So says Instapundit, in reaction to the uncouth behavior of the wife of a Miami Dolphins player:

For Miko Grimes, a pulled paid appearance was the last straw.
The wife of Dolphins cornerback Brent Grimes unleashed a firestorm headed the NFL’s way Monday night, tweeting an obscenity-laced diatribe against the league first for stiffing her husband, then for more serious allegations of inherent greed, a flagrant disregard for head injuries and women-hating. . . .

Does it occur to Mrs. Grimes that the NFL’s concern for profit is what enables the Dolphins to pay her husband vast sums of money? Does she have no sense of gratitude for this opportunity?

 

21 comments

  3. I preface my remarks by saying that I’m not much of a sports fan and, frankly, rather resent the amount of money that is spent on sports, ESPECIALLY by universities. That being said…

    As I understand it, she’s cross because she and her husband got (as she sees it) stiffed out of some money because he apparently broke the rules.

    Her husband asked for permission to miss a Pro Bowl practice to attend to her, fresh off “emergency oral surgery.” While Cowboys coach Jason Garrett acquiesced, the NFL likely wasn’t notified.

    Whose fault is this? I really don’t know: was it Grimes’ responsibility to contact the NFL? The coaching staff? If she is being truthful that he missed a practice (!) due to her unscheduled surgery, then it seems to me a bit much to cancel one of his appearances and, in effect, dock his pay. However, if it was due to his oversight (“You knew the rules, Brent”), then it seems that, hard as it may be, the NFL is well within its rights.

    As for the rest of her rant, I’m of two minds:

    On the one hand… Um, sweetie, your husband is paid MILLIONS to play football. By a football team. That is part of the NFL. That you just very publicly rubbished. In just about any other line of work, your big mouth would cost him his job. Sorry he got docked some pay, but keep your damned mouth shut about his employer, OK?

    On the other, I have very little sympathy for the NFL. Grimes has a point: they condone very bad behavior on the part of some of the players / teams in the interests of keeping fans in seats. In most other lines of work, employees caught committing crimes, beating their wives, &c. would fairly quickly find themselves out of work. However, so long as people will pay to watch these hoodlums throw a ball, the NFL will keep them in work. It’s disgraceful.

    Meh.

    As for her charge of greed, all I can say is that astonishes me how many people don’t grasp the basic concept that a business (and the NFL is a business) exists not only to make money, but to make as much money as possible. I suppose that this is greed, but it is also a good motivator for providing goods, services and (in the case of the NFL) entertainment to people. As RSM writes:

    Does it occur to Mrs. Grimes that the NFL’s concern for profit is what enables the Dolphins to pay her husband vast sums of money?

    No, I don’t think that it does.

  4. Our esteemed host wrote:

    Does it occur to Mrs. Grimes that the NFL’s concern for profit is what enables the Dolphins to pay her husband vast sums of money?

    That, on a small scale, is what I have been saying for years: a man’s best friend isn’t his neighbor or his old college buddy or the guys he shoots hoops with; a man’s best friend is his employer! If you have a falling out with your best friend, well, life goes on, and you can still pay your bills; if you lose your job, your best friend isn’t going to be able to pay your mortgage and sparktricity bills for you. Your best friend might make your leisure time a lot more enjoyable, but your employer is the man who enables you to turn your knowledge and labor into cash.

  9. As in friends who could pay all of my bills if I lose my job? While I’d just love to hook up with Paris Hilton, I think that I might need a back-up plan there.

  11. One of the Instapundit commenters posted a link to the cake Ms. Grimes gave her husband for his 30th birthday; oh, my. Not safe for work; hell, it’s not safe for the office of Hustler magazine.

    She seems like one of those people with absolutely no go/no-go filter on her brain; just let it rip, baybee!

  13. I dunno.

    I just keep seeing all my friends’ employers drop them. “Sorry! Cutting back on staff! Oh, you’ve worked here for 20 years? Golly. Don’t steal any staples when you leave!”

    Meanwhile, our friends will call up someone they know who’s been fired and ask, “What can I do to help?”

    My friends don’t merely make my leisure time enjoyable; they loan me a car for however long I need when mine breaks down; they help me when a loved one dies; they help me when my faith fails.

    My employer writes me up when I’m a minute late. Not kidding. One minute.

  14. But what they can do to help normally doesn’t last very long.

    As for being written up for being a minute late, well my “scheduled” start time is 0630, but I’m always here right around 0600.

  15. As in the pink gear for boob cancer awareness month? Look, we all know that all NFL players — now that Michael Sam has played his way out of the league — think about women’s breasts, kind of a lot; they don’t need the pink gear to tell us that.

  16. I was intrigued enough to go look. I thought how bad can it be? I mean, birthday party, so people will be attending. People they’ll be seeing socially and at the market and whatnot. Surely she wouldn’t go too far out of bounds.

    Oh yes she did, and it’s that bad. That’s no lack of go/no-go filter on her brain. I’m not sure what it is, but that definition is rather limiting.

  18. True. Though I don’t – and don’t want to know – if O’Donnell subjected her guests to port. Even on a cake.

  20. That’s no lack of go/no-go filter on her brain. I’m not sure what it is, but that definition is rather limiting.

    My guess: narcissism. There is a distinct resemblance between that cake and her Twitter icon above. (Either way, you only see the focus of her attention, not the entire frame of suspension of the equipment that she attends.) If I’m right, this implies that her accusation is projection.

Comments are closed.