KARL D. writes:

The cover of Sports Illustrated has for the first time in its history given its cover photo to a Little League baseball player. And whom might that child be? But a girl of course: the 13-year-old superstar Mo’ne Davis. I suppose the media self esteem machine simply couldn’t resist. I as well as generations of young boys have played in little league baseball. But I guess that in all that time there has not been one male who could match her achievement. Just think how helpful a Sports Illustrated cover would have been to a little boy who’s life ambition is to one day go pro? Nah. That would be a waste, wouldn’t it? Little boys already have the world by the tail for simply being born male.

Laura writes:

Mo’ne (is that a play on “money?”) towers over her teammates. She is closer to full maturity than the boys she is competing against and has the more fully developed musculature of a black athlete. It’s not exactly a level playing field.

She’s a gimmick. The Sports Industrial Complex is cashing in on the attention-getting thrill of androgyny. In the end, she is deprived of her femininity while the masculine ethic of baseball is undermined.

— Comments —

Karl D. writes:

You wrote:

“Mo’ne (is that a play on “money?”)

That’s funny. I didn’t even notice that. I will bet your’e right though and that is exactly what it is. Between the habit of blacks (especially urban blacks) naming their children ridiculous names, bizarre spellings and the worship of money I wouldn’t be surprised one bit.

Tony writes:

The Philadelphia and Chicago Little League teams are in Williamsport thanks to an “Urban Initiative” to get more black faces on TV. The LL charter for the Taney team covers an area with 1.5 million people. By comparison, the charter in my area in central Pa. covers an area with a population of about 20,000.

The teams that compete in the LLWS are supposed to be all-star teams, created in mid-June at the conclusion of the local regular season. Yet the glowing articles in the Philadelphia papers report that this team has been playing together for over a year.

The goal of all this rule-bending is, of course, to make it easier for blacks to win. It’s downright laughable. Can anyone seriously justify affirmative action for SPORTS.

Neil writes:

I’ve always wondered why sports reporting is so left wing.  Sports, in particular the one-on-one games (tennis and golf for example), would seem to be the opposite.

Anyway, if Blacks think that the entire world is against them, why do Black parents give their children such “Black” names like Trayvon, Roncuavias, De’Marco, etc.?  Who is going to interview such people based on a resume?

At least the parents of Mike Brown (of Ferguson fame) had the common sense to name him “Michael.”

Paul writes:

It is shameful for this superior ballplayer to being playing with these inferior players.  I refused to do it when I was a ballplayer.  I was no match for boys my age at baseball even though I was actually puny (until I spurted up between 14 and 15).  A neighborhood boy (he was two years older) on my older brother’s team had the gift of gab.  He and I went to the huge playground’s huge superintendent and pleaded with him to let me play with boys my brother’s age.  He agreed, as long as I “joined” the team for my age.  So I would occasionally show up for my puny team’s practice just for show.  In the meantime, I was hitting triples with my older team; I was too puny to put it over the fence.  Playing second base was bliss, which I much preferred to hitting.  I let none of my peers know I was also on the younger team and would nervously look around to make sure no one saw me with them.  When I showed up, they would crowd around me asking for tips.  It was embarrassing because I am fundamentally shy.  I had no tips.  I simply could do it.

So this athlete is no big deal.  I am sure there are many similar examples of males, and females.  The female association is driving this undue attention.  What should be a big deal is a system that allows her to play with inferior children.  It is dangerous because she is too big and talented.  I played before helmets, but still, with modern helmets, getting hit with a fastball is a big risk with most grammar-school children, who don’t have the coordination or speed to avoid the ball.  The elbows, hands, wrists, knees, and ankles can be broken with a baseball.  Even the face is at risk at that age.

Laura writes:

What we’re seeing here is the commercialization of children’s sports.

Please follow and like us: