Are Fox Sports Announcers Dignitaries?

Is Troy Aikman a "dignitary" in need of protection? A U.S. Marshal claims government resources were not misused when Aikman, Joe Buck, and Joseph Band, a lawyer for the Marshals Service who happened to be a part-time statistician for Fox Sports, were driven to the 2008 Super Bowl by a deputy marshal.

Investigators found that in at least three cities (Boston; Tampa, Fla.; and Phoenix), United States Marshals granted Band’s request for vehicles and drivers, even though it should have been clear that he was not at the games on official business, the [Inspector General's] report said.

Band arranged for Marshals Service escorts to an NFL playoff game and to a couple of World Series games. Instead of coming clean and admitting that Band misused governmental resources for his own purposes, and that the marshals who signed off on his requests made mistakes, the marshal for Arizona claimed transporting Aikman and Buck "could be considered 'dignitary protection.'" Aikman was a fine quarterback and Buck is a stellar announcer, but dignitaries they are not. As excuses for poor judgment go, this one is awfully lame.

< Hillary's Confirmation Hearing Tuesday | Some Lies Under Oath Are More Important Than Others >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Buck is a terrible announcer... (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 11:49:58 AM EST
    I can't stand his faux outrage schtick...a prime example being when Randy Moss mooned the Lambeau Field crowd when he was still with the Vikes...listening to Buck you'd think Moss committed a felony.  Spare me.

    As for the Marshals providing transport and security...it is little wonder the treasury is empty, we're paying to protect Joe Buck from the unwashed masses for christs sake.  Unreal.

    If taxicabs were good enough... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by desertswine on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 12:01:14 PM EST
    for Leonard Bernstein, they ought to be good enough for a shmoe like Buck.

    Amen... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 12:05:03 PM EST
    and good enough for Warner Wolf, my favorite sportscaster of all time.

    If you ever have the pleasure, try looking up Warner Wolf's post-fight radio interview with Rocky Marciano which took place in the backseat of a yellow cab on the way to the airport.  Classic sports journalism.


    Mooning (none / 0) (#9)
    by TChris on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 12:36:21 PM EST
    the crowd at Lambeau should be considered a serious offense unless the temperature is in the single digits (a frozen tush being punishment enough).

    He didn't even moon the crowd! (none / 0) (#17)
    by Tony on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 01:29:04 PM EST
    He faked mooning them.  Man, I despise Joe Buck.

    Besides (none / 0) (#32)
    by DFLer on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 02:36:53 PM EST
    Buck said Moss was defecating!

    Also, he neglected to mention that Randy watched the Packer fans for years, who regularly mooned the Viking team bus as it passed through a cordon of cheesy a$$ on the way out of Lambeau.


    The more I hear about Moss (none / 0) (#36)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:01:46 PM EST
    the more I like the guy. Plus, our local sports radio-Rush wannabe Fred Smerlas hates him (and of course, McNabb & other uppity types.)

    On one level I wonder if they're thinking "Hey, if the chumps'll pay for a whole new stadium without quibbling, theres no limit to how much we can indulge our hubris."


    He's good friends.... (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:16:12 PM EST
    with his QB back at Marshall, Chad Pennington...and he parties.

    Aces in my book, even if he plays for the evil Patriots now:)  Hope he gives Buck outraged fits for a few more years at least.


    Geez that goes (none / 0) (#38)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:20:03 PM EST
    against Smerlas' he hates whites speil right there.

    The guy can track a ball in the air and has always run like he's running on water. A real pleasure to watch.


    Dignitary protection? (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 11:58:34 AM EST
    More like dignitary projection.  

    I know that the more athletes (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 12:26:38 PM EST
    get treated as dignitaries, the less interest I have in sports. I hope the recession causes a bit of a backlash against the deification of athletes (my yesterday confessed worship of Andre Dawson notwithstanding).

    Can we take part of their outlandish salaries... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 12:46:32 PM EST
    ...and give them to the teachers, nurses, firefighters and all of the others who are much, much more deserving of being held up as dignitaries or role models?  

    Then again... (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 01:03:15 PM EST
    like Chris Rock once said..."Shaq is rich, the guy who signs Shaq's paycheck is wealthy"

    I'd rather the players with one in a million physical talents get the cheese as opposed to the owners, whose only talent as far as I can tell is accumulating or inheriting obscene wealth.


    According to wikianswers (none / 0) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 01:16:45 PM EST
    Shaq's worth about 300 million. According to USAToday, Robert Sarver, owner of the Suns, is worth about 400 million.

    For those who aren't B-ball fans, (none / 0) (#16)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 01:20:48 PM EST
    Shaq plays for Suns...

    It's an old Rock joke.... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 02:09:01 PM EST
    from his days with the Lakers, or even the Magic.  We may have to upgrade Shaq from rich to wealthy...point taken.

    I'm all for it (none / 0) (#11)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 12:53:37 PM EST
    But the first thing that has to happen is for people to stop planting themselves in front of the TV all weekend watching these guys. that's what drives the money.

    I know, heresy!


    Don't be jealous (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 01:11:59 PM EST
    These guys, like George Clooney and other "stars" of Gollywood make money because they persuade people to spend money to see/hear them.

    The social benefits of their "performances" has nothing to do with anything.


    I don't recall... (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 03:54:06 PM EST
    ...pulling your chain to hear right-wing talking points, troll boy.  But since you're determined to project your pathetic fear of Hollywood, let me ask you this...

    How did An American Tale work out for y'all?  What's that--sunk like a lead ballon at the box office?  Hmmm.  Darn liberal elites, right?  

    I'll bet you have no problem with "Gollywood" when you sit down to watch 24.  After all, that's got plenty of good ol' American values like torture in it.  

    Maybe you should get to work on a post of that over at your "blog" so I can be sure to miss it.


    Well, the person with no debate skills (1.00 / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 04:56:13 PM EST
    goes right for the throat.... Nice touch. Displays your (?) talent well.

    I didn't spec just Rightie Gollywooders... heck, I didn't know they existed... and I even left out authors such as Coulter.... gasp... The Humanity!

    Actually I was making a non political point that everyone but you and Jondee got....(shock shock) entertainers, such as The Big Guy get paid a lot by making a lot of money for other people... What a country!!

    American Tale? I haven't the slightest. I don't keep up with Gollywood's number. 24? Missed it Sunday night, but I understand he didn't shoot any terrorists.... what a bore..............

    As for the blog, are you Weeder Gander? hehehe


    How funny. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by wurman on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 01:48:36 PM EST
    Professional sports teams (& the athletes) are part of the entertainment business.

    Many chambers of commerce have done studies about what financial & monetary effects pro sports have on local economies.  Most of the studies have been carefully subterfuged because pro sports are usually a wash or a net financial loss to a local metropolitan statistical area.  It's easy to see: the athletes seldom live in the community & take their huge incomes elsewhere.  The "owners" extract the profits from the area & put the money elsewhere.  Prestige?  Yeah.  Try putting that in the bank.

    The primary financial effect of sports is on advertising.  The ridiculous notion that getting some couch potato to sit in front of a TV screen & watch professional sports results in a net plus economic effect is hilarious.

    Even the fans who actually buy a ticket don't contribute much to the local market.  After the taxpayers provide a free venue to the team owners (whose franchises are structured monopolies--no competition), the not-quite-a-capitalist franchisee pays big bucks to performers who attract an audience--who buy stuff at the concession stands.  Apparently, the profitability is in the ge-dunk & the TV revenues.  Ask your peanut vendor who much he/she puts back into the economy.  Check with the security folks & figure out how their minimum wages help the local financial outlook.  phfawwww.

    The self-styled stars don't make big bucks because they contribute anything to the economy; they're paid to shill for junk food & booze.

    They should have a special tax for that: "extracting for hire."  Anyone who thinks that bigtime athletes contribute to the economy & earn their keep is in a fantasy world.

    And so many are.


    Of course (none / 0) (#19)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 01:40:00 PM EST
    It is the people that need to be persuaded to spend some of their hard-earned cash where it is needed, via increasing taxes when needed to pay people providing important services decent money. the same guy who thinks nothing of shelling out $50 a pop for a sports ticket a few times a year squeals like a pig if his local taxes are raised $50 a year to support schools.

    I hope our new president puts his considerable powers of persuasion to good use.


    Oh, I don't know (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 01:46:23 PM EST
    I read somewhere that in DC they spend $19,000 per student per year in K-12 yet they have a large drop out rate.

    How much is enough?

    And you will find that in the sports world, teams who continually fail don't get that top dollar and fill the seats.

    Success has many fathers/mothers.

    Failure is an orphan.


    i think you'd best go back and (none / 0) (#31)
    by cpinva on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 02:36:43 PM EST
    check your sources again. granted, they spend a lot per pupil in DC, but nowhere near 19k per student. closer to 8k, i believe.

    however, with regards to your other comment, i'd have to agree: they get paid what the market will bear. someone thinks they're worth it, that they bring in more revenue then they get paid.


    Could have been $9K (1.00 / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 04:43:36 PM EST
    notice the "remember" bit... Also on memory I think CO has averaging around $5K in the late 90s.

    If you want "worth it" let your furnace quit and your pipes freeze... then we know the value of electricians and plumbers...


    How much is enough? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 02:39:59 PM EST

    One dues paying NEA or AFT member per student.  The schools are badly underfunding the union.

    A few facts (none / 0) (#35)
    by wurman on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 02:50:37 PM EST

    School Spending Per Pupil, 2007

    Rank Region  Spending Per Pupil

      United States $9,557

    NA District of Columbia $16,540
    1 New Jersey $14,675
    2 New York $14,206
    3 Vermont $13,385
    4 Wyoming $13,328

    Some folks are still looking for the lowest common denominator in arithmetic cyphering classes.  Other folks are also looking for any form of connection between educational spending & the dropout rate.

    A few very bright folks can identify the lowest common denominators.

    Even fewer bright folks are aware that dropout rates are connected to financial poverty.

    Sort of like professional athletic teams in that the success rate seems to be closely correlative with financial well-being.

    Go figure!  Oh wait; they did.


    Hey CP (1.00 / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 04:45:18 PM EST
    My memory must be better than either of us thought.

    Yeah. Your guess is off by $3,000 & (none / 0) (#44)
    by wurman on Wed Jan 14, 2009 at 01:29:38 PM EST
    you draw from it an inaccurate generalization.

    But other than that, somehow, your memory is OK???


    Dignitaries? Seriously? (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 02:42:14 PM EST
    That is just so lame.

    If people like Buck and Aikman could dignify their jobs with decent coverage for a change, that would be a step in the right direction, but they're a long, long way from being dignitaries.

    As for Brand, we've seen this episode before - it's the one where the guy with the not-so-glamorous job sees a way to ingratiate himself with those closer to the bright lights, and oversteps his authority and ethical contraints in order to do it.

    Embarrassing and sad, and shame on the Marshals Service for going along with it.

    Of course they aren't... (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 11:14:46 AM EST
    But who outed them? Olbermann of NBC?


    why would that be of significance? (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 11:56:54 AM EST
    or are you just trolling?

    Your lack of a sense of humor (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 01:07:13 PM EST
    is funny.

    you were trying to be funny? (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 01:43:05 PM EST
    I repeat (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 01:50:05 PM EST
    Your lack of a sense of humor is funny.

    I usually find you to be amusing (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 02:15:19 PM EST
    but rarely is it intentional on your part.

    It is reputed (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 04:37:07 PM EST
    that Churchill told Lady somebody who had told him if he were her husband she would poison him.

    "If you were my wife I would drink it."


    Yes, him, George Cloony (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 02:34:20 PM EST
    Michael Moore and some other liberal, latte drinking, slave state disdaining, Hollywood Bushhaters whose names I dont recall.

    aikman probably is considered one in dallas. (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 11:50:14 AM EST
    i have no clue who the other two are.

    commercials for a local chicken wingery here in the Dallas area.

    Now that sounds dignified! (none / 0) (#20)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 01:41:10 PM EST
    If you think that "sounds" dignified... (none / 0) (#22)
    by easilydistracted on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 01:45:04 PM EST
    you should witness it. Nothing like seeing Aikman with a gallon or so of wing sauce around his chops. He looks like Bozo the Clown.I can't believe he did it.  

    Looks like he's done several of them: (none / 0) (#25)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 02:04:40 PM EST
    Look for the title "licking fingers" (none / 0) (#28)
    by easilydistracted on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 02:18:46 PM EST
    Nope. Nothing. (none / 0) (#29)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 13, 2009 at 02:22:18 PM EST