Amerika’s quarterback, Johnny Manziel


Does sport matter? Some say it doesn’t, referring to it dismissively as “Sportsball.” Others say it matters in a negative way. It’s a part of the Matrix. Paul Kersey (of SBPDL fame) referred to college football as “The Opiate of America.” I tend to respectfully disagree with both of these points of view. I look at sport the way the Ancient Greeks looked at tragedy. The games provide catharsis and teach us lessons. They reveal truth within the crucible of competition. As Legendary UCLA Basketball Coach John Wooden put it: “Competition doesn’t build character. It reveals it.” We can see the character of who we are reflected in who gets to play our games on the biggest stages. Take the example of Amerika’s Quarterback, Johnny Manziel.

Sport doesn’t just reveal the character of the player. It also reveals the character of the people selecting and training the player. Peeling this onion back another layer, the people who decide who gets to be QB come from somewhere and are raised and educated by someone. Their decision is partially informed by that. When “Turds” like Johnny Manziel get entrusted with important decisions (even in the context of “Sportsball”), it reveals the character of the people who decide who gets to decide. So how did Johnny Football get turned into Johnny F@#$tard, and why is he Amerika’s QB?

Amerika turns its children into the most special of special little snowflakes and in so doing, we make a tragic mistake in malfeasant parenting. Nobody ever told Johnny Manziel that he sucked at anything. Manziel was the son of a Texas football legend and predictably matured into an outstanding high school QB. The misplaced hero worship started right there. So special was the Great White Snowflake, that he earned an athletic scholarship to the prestigious and world-renowned Texas Art and Music University*.

It was in college where Manziel’s specialness first turned into rot. He won many great games, went to many wild parties and developed a reputation for acting like quite the wild douche-nozzle. By the time Johnny Manziel graduated, he had a Heisman Trophy, a chemical dependency, and a reputation that scared off serious-minded NFL General Managers that strove to build workable teams in the quest for Super Bowl glory. Luckily for Johnny Football, the Cleveland Browns have an NFL franchise as well. This franchise accurately represented the brainpower and moral character of Cleveland, Ohio by selecting Manziel in the 1st Round.

It would have gone so much better for Special Little Johnny if he had been a back-up QB who spent a few years freezing his butt cheeks off on the sidelines at Michigan before getting a chance to start. Then he could spend the last Semester of his senior year, sobering up, passing a few classes and sprucing up his resume. It’s the whole process of not really knowing whether you are going to make it that helps develop the character that oh, winning a bunch of super bowls successfully revealed in Thomas E. Brady.

And what character traits make Johnny Manziel Amerika’s Quarterback? He quickly got into trouble in his first NFL training camp because he wasn’t the man and couldn’t handle being nothing special. His play was sporadic. His crazy life off the field prevented him from achieving success. He promptly finished his disastrous rookie year with a stint of rehab worthy of a Motley Crue Rhythm Guitarist. Like many special people, Manziel found rehab tiring. It drained his soul. He needed a vacation. So he decided to do something original like go to Vegas and drink.

As a result of reposing their trust, confidence, a nuclear kiloton of bank in Johnny Manziel, the Cleveland Browns got a 3-13 record, a fired Head Coach, a fired General Manager, and didn’t even quite stink badly enough to get the number one pick in next year’s draft. The entire organization, not just Manziel, will be spending the offseason getting rehabbed. And that is both condign and fitting. When the entire outfit stinks like a butthole, you can pretty much expect them to hire and promote people who, to quote Thomas E. Brady, Defending Super Bowl Champion, are basically turds.

This is why Johnny Manziel is America’s QB. He is overrated, spoiled, indulged, insulated from consequence and then put in a position he has been given no preparation to succeed in at all. And then we furrow our brows and wonder why he habitually craps on anyone who rewards him with good faith and trust. It almost reminds you of the guy we have in the White House. You could just about learn a lesson from the tragic and cathartic downfall of a guy like Johnny Speedball, oops I mean Football and not put a guy like that in charge of anything that really mattered. You could, of course, if you didn’t just consider things like NFL Games, corporate hiring decisions, Presidential Elections et al., all just “Sportsball.”

*- TAMU – If I owned a dairy cow, I’d name her that.

Tags: , , , , ,

8 Responses to “Amerika’s quarterback, Johnny Manziel”

  1. This message brought to you by AT&T says:

    I3don’t know much about sports, especially team sports, but I know that it is saturated with overpaid “superstars”. I think the finances and talents that go into sports could be put into other things…

    “I say, bring back the Circus Maximus” – Boyd Rice

  2. Tom Iron says:

    Pretty good essay. But the thing is, most people want people for leaders who are just like them So you see these bums leading our nation in every walk of life in this country. That’s where we’re at. Bums leading bums. The writer gets it. you just have to keep peeling the onion layer by layer and that’s what you’ve got, rottenness all the way down.

    • Jpw says:

      You can take the temperature of any kind of organization by looking at the person who represents it to the public…

  3. MeToo says:

    If everyone, including bankers & politicians, were insulated from consequences, then at least the playing field would be level, would it not. Stupid football players and the organization & system that enable them are small peanuts.

  4. Dualist says:

    Part of my comment from the previous article is also relevant to this one:

    ….In England we HAD the perfect system. Free education, of superb quality; and at age 11, the sheep would be separated from the goats. All kids leaving primary school would take the ’11-plus’ exam. The lower 80% would then go to a ‘technical college’ that would teach them the practical skills used in the manual trades they were better suited for.

    But, crucially, those scoring in the top 20% (at most) would then be given free ‘Grammar School’ education, which was actually of the same quality as that from our most elite private schools.

    Rigorous, academic subjects were taught well, ending in difficult exams in which only the talented would succeed. Moral character was also formed, as in the ancient world, by using the Classics such as the Iliad and the Aeneid to give examples of greatness from the past. The rigorous teaching of history gave pupils a real sense of pride in the nation’s past and hence a desire to ‘live up to’ these ideals in the future, as well as learning to avoid certain pitfalls seen in previous centuries.

    And the results? The boards of directors of the Empire’s companies were FULL of lads from working-class, poor, backgrounds who had PROVEN themselves to be of equal intelligence and aptitude to those born rich. As were our elite Universities – and Parliament. This was unthinkable a century earlier, when the only people who achieved great things were born rich. The less-clever benefited too: that lower 80% all left school at age 14 and got jobs were they could provide for their families instead of being forced, like they are today, to waste another 4 years learning watered-down subjects they didn’t have the aptitude to study. The results was that a larger proportion of society’s members reached their FULL POTENTIAL – probably the best indicator of a healthy society. Notice, this wasn’t TAKING from the rich to give to the poor (the cost of having one extra school in each town was easily paid by local authorities). It simply created more competition in society. And people learned that RESULTS mattered.

    So the leftists were overjoyed at this… surely? The conditions for ALL the poor were better, and those dreaded class-barriers were broken down. Social mobility was up. So how did the Left respond? By totally destroying this system, under a leftist Labour government in the 60’s! Their only argument against it? Not EVERYBODY was bright enough to go to a Grammar School – so it made people unequal! Even though the condition of the poorest was much better than before the system, they would often talk about the HURT FEELINGS of those who failed the 11-plus and so felt like ‘second-class’ citizens from that age (the main proponents of this argument all had sons who had failed the exam, naturally). So they invented the idea of ‘Comprehensive’ Education – were the smart were taught alongside the dumb. They even ADMITTED this would not give the brightest kids the same education they had had under the Grammar School system – but it was much, MUCH more important that everybody should be equal, of course. “What is you aim with introducing the Comprehensive system” one Labour MP was asked. To help the poor even further, did he respond? “To destroy every fucking Grammar School in the country” was his word-for-word answer. Leftism is, and always has been, a DESTRUCTIVE ideology, based on envy. And, of course, they didn’t want the proles learning TOO much and then (naturally) rejecting leftism. And so the Grammer Schools were abolished.

    The effect of THIS? Today, if you’re born to a poor family, but are naturally clever, you now have practically zero chance of getting a good education – and will stay poor. With the rich STILL have their elite schools, all the same! Every measurable statistic has consistently shown that social mobility has gone down. So, has the Labour Party admitted its error? No. Not ONE single MP supports the reintroduction of this system, to this day. Because people are now more equal – equally bad. To a leftist, that’s a result. Please mention this example to any liberal who says all they really want is equality of opportunity.

    I’ve gone into detail about this last one as it demonstrates what I feel is the surest way to get us out of the mess we’re in, over the long-term: number one, forget about egalitarianism as an ideology straight away – but DO accept that giving more people a chance to improve THEMSELVES and their lot is a good thing for society. Other than defense and infrastructure, the ONLY thing a country should spend tax on is a system of rigorous, competitive education where only the BEST are rewarded. It is an investment that pays off, and handsomely. Giving people indefinite monetary handouts is the OPPOSITE of this, and only removes the impetus to improve.

    Let us teach all to have pride in the history of their people’s achievements and they will naturally want to emulate the Great Men of the past (and so will make sure egalitarianism is never resurrected again!) It will also furnish them with examples of all those civilisations who failed because they made wrong decisions – which will finally give Pluralism its long-overdue execution, as people realise that their IS, for each circumstance, a right decision to make. Give them REALISTIC advice throughout their schooling about what they CAN achieve, given their skills, instead of just letting them choose whatever specialist subjects they ‘like’. Most of all, we should foster environments in which Transcendent values and beliefs can once again flourish.

    And THEN, after one or two generations, a new elite will ORGANICALLY form. We CERTAINLY do NOT want an HEREDITARY elite because, quite simply, no man, no matter how great, is certain to produce great offspring. Think William Rufus after William the Conqueror. Think Edward II after Edward I. Hereditary systems REDUCE competition, which only means one thing for any society: stagnation. Neither will this new elite NEED to be repressive – if everybody has been given an equal opportunity to develop their natural talents, then if a person still achieves little it is only his own fault, or his lack of natural talent. So, even though there will still be losers who will envy their betters, they will no longer have a scapegoat to blame. If they DID try to invent one (and used it as an excuse for insurrection) then that would be, admittedly, the time to remove their liberty/heads.

    Instead, what we would then have is a continuous caste SPECTRUM (as opposed to a rigid 3-way system, or whatever). And we would also have, unlike today, the critical mass of intelligent, moral people required to make sure each new generation thrived more than the last.

    • Dan Kurt says:

      Soon IQ will be mapped to the genome. Equality ends then as genetics will show an objective IQ.

      Dan Kurt

  5. Dennis says:

    You do know the “A&M” in Texas A&M stands for “agriculture & mining,” not “arts and music”?

    And, by the way, Johnny never graduated. He left college after his junior year.

    • Jpw says:

      >>>>You do know the “A&M” in Texas A&M stands for “agriculture & mining,” not “arts and music”?

      DUDE!!!! I never would have known that one….

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>