Mr. Zirin's dissection of the Plaxico situation is disingenuous. Zirin wants the reader to believe that Burress is not capable of making the decisions a man of his position must make. Isn't Zirin laboring under the premise that Burress, and therefore all who play an equivalent media role, are and will be incapable of making difficult decisions? Yes, Plaxico is in a precarious position in this society, but do what Zirin terms "contributing factors" equate to fatal flaws?
It is right, in my opinion, to hold our heroes to high standards and not to make excuses for their bad acts. Zirin declares that the choices that Burress has to make "just aren't choices many players want to make." What is the reader to feel here: sorry for the millionaire, media-fed, superstar, or wanting of a higher level of moral behavior? Feeling sorry is demeaning, and moral aspirations are inspiring. Zirin asks us to demean, all while chastising Bloomberg for not "displaying anger" about the more politically correct issues. Bloomberg's politics in relation to Wall Street and the Republican National Convention will be judged and historically debated. Bloomberg chastising Burress is part of his laudable effort to keep guns off the streets, and out of the clubs. I'd rather have Burress, and therefore all of our media heroes, held to a higher level of citizenship, then be asked to weaken that desire and permit them to avoid a choice that they "just...don't want to make." Being liberal does not have to be about relative morality.
New York, NY
Dec 10 2008 - 9:44pm