Tennis pro Andre Agassi admits in a tell-all biography that he used a scary amphetamine known as crystal meth. A star athlete using drugs! What in the Sam Hill? He claims to have got the boost from his assistant drug-user named Slim. Agassi, baby, how many times do I have to tell you, never trust a guy named Slim. Apparently Agassi claims his career was in the shitter due to a wrist injury back in 1997. Slim laid out the powder and took a bump. He cut up another blast and Andre leaned forward and went on a trip. We've all heard the story before. In his book he claims he took the hit and immediately regretted it. This regret however, was immediately replaced by an awe inspiring high of a lifetime. Ah, crystal meth you naughty little boy.
Had I been in the room at the time I'd have told Andre," Don't do it man. The only Slim I'd ever have trusted was the one Lauren Bacall played in 'To Have or Have Not' with Humphrey Bogart. Now that was a dame. A dame you could trust." But I wasn't there. And the rest is in his bio and for the history books.
After the Hot Shot tennis player took the shot he got a call from the tennis federation informing him that he failed a drug test. From bad comes badder. Andre had already crossed one line and he was about to cross another. He wrote a heart felt letter to the federation in which he claimed that he drank a soda that was spiked with the meth. (Happens to me all the time). He dropped a dime on Slim in the process as he pointed out that the soda was Slim's. Sorry Slim, but you are a prick anyway. I don't blame Slim, for there are Slims around every corner. Andre was a big boy who made a dumb choice, end of story. But, in the end the crack team of federation members bought Agassi's story and dropped the incident. It sure sounds like there was a pay off on top of it all but if there was; Andre, Slim and the federation ain't talkin'.
As you all know Agassi made a comeback and eventually retired in 2006. He hooked up with tennis star Stephi Graff and today they have two kids. Cue the happy ending music. All that remains now is whether or not Agassi's legacy will remain intact- at least that's what the punditry is punditizin' about. Do any of us care? I think not. But the punditry must do what it does or face extinction.
But the question is why now? Why cop to the drug use now? Did Stephi put him up to it? Does Andre's guilty conscience rob him of sleep? Allow me to speculate on the hypothesis based on my own factual musings. A tennis pro gets high with his assistant. If the pro takes to the meth then sooner or later he's going to get bored with staring across the glass table at Slim's mug day after meth soaked day. So let's say Andre says, 'say Slim, why not get some broads over here and maybe a couple of your cool buddies'. Slim, being a tweaker knows plenty o' meth heads. Although high, the tweakers know who Andre is. Flash forward to Andre's retirement. What if somebody talks? What if one of the meth heads comes down long enough to write their own tell all? (in crayon). Suppose they try and shake Agassi down for some grease like David Letterman's blackmailer? Get the picture? It's totally plausible that Andre Agassi thought it best to jump out in front of all of the members of the crystal-meth mirrored round table.
I think my theory brings considerable weight to the story and fills in the missing pieces. Again, it's like I always say, 'know who you're getting high with.' The only problem is you're high and it is therefore tough to remember who you got high with...or so I've read. I think Andre has come out of this thing smelling like a rose, or at least a two day old chrysanthemum. The moral and morale for that matter, of the story is; if you're down on your luck don't bump the hard meth, stick to beers, you'll be glad you did.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Care We Not For Our Daughters?
Sick of the Roman Polanski affair yet? Me too, but probably not for the same reason as you. By now you've all heard that in the 1970's Polanski loaded up a 13 year girl with quaaludes and booze and then raped her. He got caught and charged. He allegedly cut a deal with the judge whereby pleading guilty to a lesser charge of sex with a minor he'd serve 42 days under psych assessment and be done with it. At some point he caught wind that the judge was going to rescind the deal, so Polanski fled. That's the rough, long and short of it.
Now here's what sticks in my craw. A group of pathetic friends and colleagues have come to his defense. And their defenses are abysmal. One of the first people I saw to charge in on her steed actress Debra Winger. Years ago Rosanna Arquette made a little film begging Winger to return to the silver screen. The film was about sexism and ageism in Hollywood, which is why Debra left the screen for a time. Let me get this straight. Sexism is bad but child rape is o.k. if done by a good director. And isn't the rape of a child at least 20 times worse than giving a movie role to a man instead of a woman simply because she's a woman? Since then Winger has done precious little...of note anyway. To remain more or less silent all of these years only to choose this incident to make a public statement for a once celebrated movie director and guilty child rapist is disgusting. It reminds me of why I generally loathe celebrities. The basis of her defense was little different from the usual celebrity line, "Oh but you must look at the contribution..." Yo, Deb, how about you stay retired and stay away from the soap box, and let people with actual causes for, and about people, who actually contribute to society do the talking huh? You are an idiot! And this coming from a WOMAN! Enough about Winger.
Another tasty argument put forth by the morons of society who would defend Roman 'the prick' Polanski is this: The victim, Samantha Geimer, has forgiven Polanski and has even stated that she doesn't want him arrested. Since when in our society do we have the victim set the punishment? That ain't how society works baby. We have laws. We have courts. And even though, many innocent are wrongly convicted and many guilty go free. It's the best we've got at the moment. And when these laws are executed correctly they send a message to other would-be child rapists that if you do it; you'll get caught and punished. Not; If you do it and the girl says she's cool then by all means have a cocktail on us. These laws also let other victims know that the majority of society are on their side and that they didn't deserve what happened to them. I fault Samantha Geimer in no way. She has forgiven Roman so that SHE could move forward and have a life. She picked up the fragments of her life and managed to maintain a degree of dignity, so that Polanski could not take everything from her. Had she carried anger, or guilt or severe depression with her she'd carry it every day that the cowardly bastard cowered out his last 30 years on the lamb. And what kind of life would that be?
Yet another gem put forth by the aforementioned dimwits who would defend the overrated director/ child rapist is this: Roman is a holocaust survivor and therefor distrusts authority and simply got scared of the MAN, and was forced to run. Oh, this one is rich! Let us go back to a few years before Roman's party night to the 1960's. Anybody remember a time when Blacks in America were beaten, hosed, hanged, attacked by police dogs, and were locked up for skin color? To follow the logic of the above defense of Polanski don't all Blacks who were around at that time deserve to 'distrust authority' and therefor be allowed to flee from any and all charges? Jails all over the world are full of prisoners who don't trust authority, it doesn't mean that they get out of jail free. The accused must face the music. Something Polanski was and is too cowardly to do.
Polanski defenders have a whole host of other defenses none of which add up to a wooden nickle. The point is this ladies and gentlemen: There is no defense for Polanski. A 13 year old girl was drugged and fed alcohol by a grown man. A man who had many admirers and could have enjoyed sex with many women his age. But he chose a child. And he was not looking for sex. He was looking for RAPE and SODOMY! Imagine a little girl out of her mind but conscious enough to know that what is being done to her is wrong. She had to feel his weight on her-smell his breath. She is over powered by him. She was forced to feel his touch-endure his sweat. She's powerless. She must take it, for she has no other choice. Only Roman had a choice. The man with all of the power. And after raping and sodomizing her he runs away to freedom in another country. But it is o.k. with Harvey Weinstein, a powerful producer and it is o.k. with Woody Allen because he's a director and a pedophile as well, who married what was once his adopted child. And it is o.k. with Debra Winger because even though she's a woman she's a washed up actor. But oooh wasn't she great in Officer and a Gentleman!
Everybody has a mother. Some of you reading this blog are women, some of you have sisters and some have daughters. Would you volunteer your mother/sister/self/daughter for THAT evening with Polanski because he directed Chinatown? If your answer is yes, then you have serious problems and I recommend help. Roman Polanski is a man who stands behind a camera and yells, "Action!" in a world of make believe. He is nothing more and he is so much less!!!
Now here's what sticks in my craw. A group of pathetic friends and colleagues have come to his defense. And their defenses are abysmal. One of the first people I saw to charge in on her steed actress Debra Winger. Years ago Rosanna Arquette made a little film begging Winger to return to the silver screen. The film was about sexism and ageism in Hollywood, which is why Debra left the screen for a time. Let me get this straight. Sexism is bad but child rape is o.k. if done by a good director. And isn't the rape of a child at least 20 times worse than giving a movie role to a man instead of a woman simply because she's a woman? Since then Winger has done precious little...of note anyway. To remain more or less silent all of these years only to choose this incident to make a public statement for a once celebrated movie director and guilty child rapist is disgusting. It reminds me of why I generally loathe celebrities. The basis of her defense was little different from the usual celebrity line, "Oh but you must look at the contribution..." Yo, Deb, how about you stay retired and stay away from the soap box, and let people with actual causes for, and about people, who actually contribute to society do the talking huh? You are an idiot! And this coming from a WOMAN! Enough about Winger.
Another tasty argument put forth by the morons of society who would defend Roman 'the prick' Polanski is this: The victim, Samantha Geimer, has forgiven Polanski and has even stated that she doesn't want him arrested. Since when in our society do we have the victim set the punishment? That ain't how society works baby. We have laws. We have courts. And even though, many innocent are wrongly convicted and many guilty go free. It's the best we've got at the moment. And when these laws are executed correctly they send a message to other would-be child rapists that if you do it; you'll get caught and punished. Not; If you do it and the girl says she's cool then by all means have a cocktail on us. These laws also let other victims know that the majority of society are on their side and that they didn't deserve what happened to them. I fault Samantha Geimer in no way. She has forgiven Roman so that SHE could move forward and have a life. She picked up the fragments of her life and managed to maintain a degree of dignity, so that Polanski could not take everything from her. Had she carried anger, or guilt or severe depression with her she'd carry it every day that the cowardly bastard cowered out his last 30 years on the lamb. And what kind of life would that be?
Yet another gem put forth by the aforementioned dimwits who would defend the overrated director/ child rapist is this: Roman is a holocaust survivor and therefor distrusts authority and simply got scared of the MAN, and was forced to run. Oh, this one is rich! Let us go back to a few years before Roman's party night to the 1960's. Anybody remember a time when Blacks in America were beaten, hosed, hanged, attacked by police dogs, and were locked up for skin color? To follow the logic of the above defense of Polanski don't all Blacks who were around at that time deserve to 'distrust authority' and therefor be allowed to flee from any and all charges? Jails all over the world are full of prisoners who don't trust authority, it doesn't mean that they get out of jail free. The accused must face the music. Something Polanski was and is too cowardly to do.
Polanski defenders have a whole host of other defenses none of which add up to a wooden nickle. The point is this ladies and gentlemen: There is no defense for Polanski. A 13 year old girl was drugged and fed alcohol by a grown man. A man who had many admirers and could have enjoyed sex with many women his age. But he chose a child. And he was not looking for sex. He was looking for RAPE and SODOMY! Imagine a little girl out of her mind but conscious enough to know that what is being done to her is wrong. She had to feel his weight on her-smell his breath. She is over powered by him. She was forced to feel his touch-endure his sweat. She's powerless. She must take it, for she has no other choice. Only Roman had a choice. The man with all of the power. And after raping and sodomizing her he runs away to freedom in another country. But it is o.k. with Harvey Weinstein, a powerful producer and it is o.k. with Woody Allen because he's a director and a pedophile as well, who married what was once his adopted child. And it is o.k. with Debra Winger because even though she's a woman she's a washed up actor. But oooh wasn't she great in Officer and a Gentleman!
Everybody has a mother. Some of you reading this blog are women, some of you have sisters and some have daughters. Would you volunteer your mother/sister/self/daughter for THAT evening with Polanski because he directed Chinatown? If your answer is yes, then you have serious problems and I recommend help. Roman Polanski is a man who stands behind a camera and yells, "Action!" in a world of make believe. He is nothing more and he is so much less!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)