Great Moments in Idiocy


Remember earlier today when we wrote about the two exciting new hires by the Houston Astros? How we sort of praised the Astros (the Astros!) for hiring smart people with expensive brains and diverse experiences? That was fun.

You know what isn’t fun? Reducing an accomplished lawyer with experience in two Major League front offices to “a former cheerleader.” That isn’t fun. At all. Actually, it’s baloney. The very worst kind.

Unfortunately that is the tack taken by Stan McNeal the Sporting News. Which is deeply unfortunate. Maybe head over to his twitter and let him know that isn’t the kind of thing you want to read in 2012. Which is the actual year, right now. Crazy.

Hat tip to @emmaspan, whose original tweet is below the jump.

Comments (25)

  1. How the hell did he even know that he was cheerleader? Pulitzer material, Big Stan. Stay classy.

  2. Yes taht is too bad – But is she hot?!?!? (jokes)

  3. In all fairness, he didn’t reduce her to a cheerleader; he mentioned – albeit first – that she was a cheerleader. It’s not reducing if you go on to state her other credentials.

  4. I’m not denying that it was innappropriate. But let’s at least call a spade a spade and not overstate what he wrote.
    By definition, if he includes other attributes and credentials, he’s not reducing her to a cheerleader. Do we all understand what “reducing” means?

    • Whoops. That was supposed to be a reply to GoSox.

      • Click on the link and read the whole article.

        It’s quite obvious the writer threw that tid bit of information out there to help him question the Astro’s hiring. THAT is why we people are tying themselves into a knot over this. Its the fact that he only included that information to degrade the individual, not that he included the information in there at all. If it had any relevancy nobody would really care (IE: If she was hired as the cheerleaders coach).

        • I never denied that throwing the cheerleading tidbit in there wasn’t innappropriate. He obviously included it to subtly(or maybe not-so-subtly) undermine her credibility. I agree with you that it’s irrelevant and carries needless implications.

          My point was only that it’s probably a stretch to say that this piece reduces Wilka to a cheerleader – the key word is reduces. In order for Wilka to be reduced to a cheerleader, her other credentials would have to be ignored. It’s more a matter of semantics than anything else, as Drew’s point is still valid.

    • Think you’re reducing the definition of reducing.

  5. To play the devil’s advocate here. The implication that the mention of cheer leading experience is somehow an indictment of her capability seems born of hypersensitivity.

    “Mr. Generic Male, whose playing experience ended in high school was hired to run the Astro’s scouting department.”

    That statement wouldn’t seem out of place. High School baseball experience is about as relevant to the skills required to run a scouting department as cheer leading. Mentioning sports experience when writing about the hiring of a sports executive is pretty much required.

    • I’d counter that there’s a connotation, fair or not, that cheer leading has a hell of a lot more to do with being attractive than athletic; much more so than playing on a high school baseball team.

  6. Too bad Stan McNeal hasn’t tweeted since November.

    He didn’t headline his article “Kooky book character and cheerleader hired by Astros”, he carefully made sure that Wilka was first an ex-cheerleader, and then all the other things. As if cheer-leading was relevant in any way to her qualifications to this position.

    Bridgemaster: If you don’t get how insulting this is, try changing your what-if scenario from “Generic Male” to “Former Mascot”.

  7. super overreacting and pandering to the hypersensitive.

    gonna pretend you didn’t post this and move on

    and whoddathunk that listing her athletic achievements in a sports article would be so degrading

    • Listing her “sports achievements” ahead of the actual qualifications that landed her a non-athletic job?

    • Are you seriously suggesting that being a cheerleader is both an “athletic achievement” and relevent to her job with the Astros? Because you’re badly wrong on both counts even if you are incapable of seeing it. If you don’t like it, go on over to DJF, I’m sure you fit right in among the poo-flinging monkey army.

      • Ahhh. It seems “poo-flinging” is not restricted to the monkey army. Poor Naya, did somebody in the monkey army hurt your widdle feelings?

  8. Let’s try this from the previous article:

    “If you’re ever wondering why the baseball establishment could feel threatened by the Geek Creep, take a quick look at Mejdal’s resume…”

    Mejdal finished 2nd in his fantasy baseball league from 2007-2011 and was co-champion in 2005.

    “…Not only did he earn two engineering degrees at UC-Davis, he later completed advanced degrees in Operations Research and Cognitive Psychology/Human Factors. Mejdal later took his very tall forehead to work at Lockheed Martin and NASA. Worse yet? Mejdal joined SABR in grade school, to his parent’s eternal shame.”

    That’s sports relevant right? We’ll put it first before all his ‘other’ non-sports accomplishments.

  9. Yeah because cheer leading really effects how she’ll do in her scouting job. What a turd.

    • Yeah, one it’s a dick move.
      If it’s unintentional, it’s lazy journalism. You’re assuming the reader doesn’t know better. It’s like trying to use hockey analogies in baseball columns assuming the readers in this market require a hockey point of view to everything.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *