12/21/24
February 13, 2005
The Age of the Résumé Gods: (no reg link) Is David Brooks, who I love to hate, just whining or does he have a point about economic privilege and, if so, is it just here in the US or generally accepted practice around the globe? "We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights - though, of course, V.I.P.'s must be taken care of, as they are in any other circumstance."
posted by billsaysthis to culture at 01:01 AM - 9 comments
Were things different under Louis XVI? I mean, besides the height of the mound. You're forgetting, no DH. I think there is a point, that as prices have moved up and stadiums have expanded their nosebleed seats, what ordinary people can afford is farther and farther out there, and there's almost certainly more VIP-and-corporate locks on the good stuff.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:16 AM on February 13, 2005
Absolutely, but that's not what the article is arguing. He's saying the Average Joe, even with an infinite supply of cash, could not obtain certain things simply because he doesn't know the right people. Not fair, but nothing new.
posted by yerfatma at 11:52 AM on February 13, 2005
If its all VIPs behind the plate, then pull the netting and let them fend for themselves...I want to see Norm Coleman get plugged, among others. I'm sure its basically that way everywhere, there's just more "important" people in Washington...
posted by chris2sy at 12:03 PM on February 13, 2005
If David Brooks is an Average Joe then I was just named GM of the 49ers. Politics aside, and I despise his politics, this reeks of a corner office guy trying to claim some street cred by dressing down for the company picnic. The only possible difference these days is the factors determining who gets passed the velvet rope.
posted by billsaysthis at 02:00 PM on February 13, 2005
Yeah, "Bobo" whining about not getting VIP-status is both laughable and pathetic. It's laughathetic! He should stick to penning his usual screeds for the rise of the Hitlerean middle class in America. Much like the columnist he is but a winged familiar to, George Will, when he waxes onto the topic of baseball, it just becomes torturously unreadable drivel.
posted by hincandenza at 02:56 PM on February 13, 2005
I like the idea of removing the nets. HAHAH! It's despicable, really, but sadly, a reality of sports. Actually, let me rephrase that. IF the "VIP" is a baseball nut, then I have a lot less of a problem with it, and do realise the realities of the sport, sadly. However, if the person there has no interest and is there to fraternize with other VIP's and couldn't give a shit about the ballgame, or is there for anything other than, first and foremost, the baseball, then they should get the fuck out and let someone interested in the sport have the seat because they're worthless, leeching scum.
posted by Drood at 03:20 PM on February 13, 2005
IF the "VIP" is a baseball nut, then I have a lot less of a problem with it Totally: in that case it falls under "I'd probably do the same thing." But when you see a luxury box or front row filled with people doing anything but watching the game, it's intolerable. If they can project ads onto the wall behind the catcher, why not project a real crowd as well? My vote would be for one of the Boston Garden crowds from the early '80s. Skinny ties, tight tee shirts, obscene facial hair, neon colors and the fervor of converts.
posted by yerfatma at 04:56 PM on February 13, 2005
If someone offered me VIP tickets to a baseball game, I'd take them. In fact I had some to the Edmonton Trappers last year (sadly I was sick and couldn't use them. ARGHHH!) That's fine. But yeah, the ones who quite obviously have no interest in the sport make me sick. I've only recently started following the majors, but I have a HUGE problem in any sport with fans who turn up for reasons other than the sport itself.
posted by Drood at 05:40 PM on February 13, 2005
Great link and a good piece, but it seems disingenuous to pretend this started happening 20 years ago. Were things different under Louis XVI? I mean, besides the height of the mound.