Namath has a new book out, which is the reason for his media blitz. He was in this area yesterday at a book signing. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette sports section ran an article about it with the headline "Namath Remains a Big Draw, Despite Admitted Flaws."
Thisheadline raises two questions in my mind: 1. Can only those people be a "big draw" who have no flaws? In that case no one would qualify so why mention "flaws" in the headline. 2. Namath's "flaws" are so egregious as to have to be referred toin the headline.
And what are Namath's "flaws"? According to the article, it was his asking Suzy Kolber to kiss him during an interview on a nationally televised football game while in an inebriated state; and being a recovering alcoholic.
That's it. No arrests, no drug dealing, no assaults, no wife or girlfriend beating. He's an admitted and recovering alcoholic, and that must now be obligatorily attached to every mention of his name, much as it was with Mickey Mantle, or the way KKK is attached to David Duke.
We're just not allowed to have white heroes, even former counterculture celebrities like Joe Namath. If Namath is "flawed," then what is Jim Brown??? Well known black athletes can have arrest records as long as their arm, but aren't referred to in a derogatory manner in headlines and articles. Namath is being allowed to capitalize (make money) on his book, but it comes with a Caste System price.
