Om Field: A Quick Nod to Reality

[Om]

Daily Redskin 1.17.10

A whole lot of people are quick to express low opinions of Redskins team owner Daniel Snyder. Not just on football matters--few are shy about taking the man's character to task as well. That's the part that I always wonder about.Precious few have personal experiences and direct knowledge upon which to base those opinions of another man's character,*and I have no truck

More...

 

[Neophyte]

Nice nod, Om.

 

[Jimbo]

And as is the team's practice, there were no press conferences called, no press releases issued, no attention called beyond the factual piece on their web site linked herein.

There may have been no official "press release" but redskins.com says "LOUDOUN COUNTY, VA -- The Washington Redskins have announced that they are partnering with Diageo, the world’s leading spirits, beer and wine company, and one of the team’s long-standing business partners, to fly medical supplies, personnel, and clothing to earthquake-stricken Haiti."

If the Washington Redskins have "announced" this fact then it wasn't done anonymously and putting it on Redskins.com is really not much different than a press release.

I'm won't blast Snyder's generosity as this is a totally wonderful thing he's doing. He's done generous things in the past as well, like aiding the victims of Katrina. Still, his character will ALWAYS be in question for the way he has treated his employees, especially those he inherited when he took over the Redskins.

Om, you say "Precious few have personal experiences or direct knowledge upon which to base those low opinions, and I have no truck with them. We should form our opinions based on personal experience."

Wonder what Sarge has to say about that. Also, basing opinions on Snyder based only on personal experience means I really shouldn't give a rats patoot about his charitable contributions since they don't affect me personally.

Like it or not, opinions will be made based on what the guy has "reportedly" done. Charity is a GREAT thing. Firing people just because he didn't hire them in the first place AND the way he went about it is NOT. Suing season ticket holders is NOT. Doing a sorry job of running my favorite team into the ground in NOT.

It doesn't mean my opinion of the guy can't change. It DOES mean that my opinion will not now, nor probably EVER, be based on personal experience.

 

[Elephant]

I had been one to give Dan Snyder the benefit of the doubt because I knew he was a Redskins' fan. I had heard things I was unable to corroborate, but I knew he wanted the Redskins' to win so I have to say I may have even looked the other way. Several years back an incident occurred that made me see a man that was seemingly narcissistic. In the years since, there have been a series of similar stories that would mold my overall perception of the man, only a couple with definitive proof but an abundance of hearsay to support the overall perception.

I think the story Sarge has circulated with proof, is known by most of us on this site. That alone is a strong argument for a self absorbed man who is capable of deceit. My personal experience is not nearly as malevolent, but gives some insight.

My sister was a delivery driver for a major shipping company in the area and his house on River Rd. was a part of her route. She did speak highly of Snyder's sister so I think that should be mentioned, but otherwise the place was like a fortress with extremely spiritless security. Say what you will about that, I have my thoughts but that is merely conjecture and you asked for more.

The incident that is provable that I think was a sign of who Snyder is/was or is capable of being involves his complete disregard for the law. Snyder's property borders the Potomac River. The laws in the area forbid the clearing of the trees along the river's edge. Snyder took it upon himself to hire a company to come in and clear the trees to give him an unobstructed view of the river. This was a total disregard for the law creating a fire storm of controversy.

I know this is not some earth shattering revelation. What I think this incident illustrates is a man who is willing to do whatever or pay whatever he can to get what he wants. Sound familiar?

Now, OM has brought to our attention an example of the man's generosity. I will also bring to light the impression I felt as I saw him give out turkeys on Thanksgiving Day. Does this suggest Dan Snyder is more than we have come to believe? Is this a sign of maturity from a man who has displayed little in the past other than a narcissistic personality? Who knows?

From what my sister has said of her dealings on his property, the letter Sarge provided and the incident with his disregard for the law of the land in favor of his own personal desire, I can see how people have developed the idea that Dan Snyder is a pompous, self-absorbed man..

 

[Om]

Jimbo, I didn't say they did it anonymously. I said they did it with no fanfare, just a simply factual news piece on the regular cycle of their website.

But the point is, Snyder DID it. I just wonder how many Redskins fans (and others) who piss on anything within a mile of mention of the man at every opportunity stopped to notice.

 

[Om]

Fine post, Elephant ... blog-nominated.

Let's take it to the next obvious question. I don't think anyone really doubts Snyder is, at least in part, pompous and self-absorbed. I certainly don't. Thing is, I deal with pompous self-absorbed people every day. I'd say most of us do. Why then is Snyder hated, when every other pompous self-absorbed putz we meet every day is simply ignored or dismissed as not worth our bile?

And what then about all the charity stuff? Does a pompous self-absorbed man earn any chits in his favor by being charitable. How about if he's REALLY charitable, as we learn more and more that Snyder seems to be? If we're someone disposed to hate someone for being an asshole, do we have any kind of moral responsibility to at least say, well, okay, he may be an asshole, but where it really matters he comes through time and again?

 

[Jimbo]

Om, perhaps what you consider fanfare and what I consider fanfare probably don't match in this case but I think he definitely deserves praise for his charity work even though I fully expect it of him. Is it fair for me to expect it? Perhaps not but I do, probably because it's what I would do if I were in that position.

In an instance like this, I expect it from every billionaire. When you're THAT wealthy, you pretty much have to treat money like manure. It's no good unless you spread it around. Praise to those who do and shame on those who don't.

 

[Elephant]

Fine post, Elephant ... blog-nominated.

Let's take it to the next obvious question. I don't think anyone really doubts Snyder is, at least in part, pompous and self-absorbed. I certainly don't. Thing is, I deal with pompous self-absorbed people every day. I'd say most of us do. Why then is Snyder hated, when every other pompous self-absorbed putz we meet every day is simply ignored or dismissed as not worth our bile?

And what then about all the charity stuff? Does a pompous self-absorbed man earn any chits in his favor by being charitable. How about if he's REALLY charitable, as we learn more and more that Snyder seems to be? If we're someone disposed to hate someone for being an asshole, do we have any kind of moral responsibility to at least say, well, okay, he may be an asshole, but where it really matters he comes through time and again?

First off, thank you for the compliment. I must admit at times I question my writing skills when I read some of what is posted here, so thank you.

To answer your question in regard to the hatred for Snyder, I think it boils down to blame. I think it is indicative of the age we live, to blame someone when disaster strikes. In this disaster, the current state of the Redskins, the ego-centric boy-man is the easiest object of our petulance. And I believe at least some of it is warranted.

Now, what about his charitable contributions? I think you are speaking of redemption here. As a Christian, I believe redemption is possible. When I saw the story about his charitable act during Thanksgiving, I was one who supported him when he was lamb basted for not giving Kelly any comments. I think it is based entirely on his motive, of which we cannot possibly know.

I had someone explain it to me like this one time:
I was asked, "Is it selfish to give your wife roses?" My reply was of course not! He then asked me, "OK, say you were late for dinner and got roses for your wife?" I said I still believed it was not selfish. He then asked, "OK, let's say you just cheated on your wife then you come home with roses because you feel guilty for cheating on her. Is it selfish to give your wife roses?" He made it clear to me that motives dictate the level of selflessness in charity.

It can be argued there are no self less acts. Who knows? We cannot possibly know what is in the heart of another man. Does he give to compensate for whatever? Or is his giving as result of genuine good will?

I can tell you I don't doubt for a second that Daniel Snyder does "good", as proven with his charitable donations in times of need like in Haiti. But, is he making an effort to clear his guilty mind? I think he is, but of course I am speculating.

This is a question only Dan Snyder can answer. Actions speak louder than words, but are those actions too little too late? I can tell you there are a lot of people who say it is. I will say, as a Redskins' fan I am likely to give him the benefit of the doubt if he continues to act as he has in the last couple of months.

 

[Henry]

I don't care if Snyder is a good or bad guy. I just want the Redskins to not suck.

Is that wrong?

 

[servumtuum]

Thing is, I deal with pompous self-absorbed people every day. I'd say most of us do. Why then is Snyder hated, when every other pompous self-absorbed putz we meet every day is simply ignored or dismissed as not worth our bile?

Keeping things in context-the answer might be, not every other pompous self-absorbed putz owns the Redskins.

One of the mods at the largest Oakland Raider fan board posted a sticky stating that any more posts expressing a wish that Al Davis would just go ahead and die would be deleted and the poster at risk of temporary banishment-or permanent if repeated violations occurred. It seems to be a component of the emotional involvement on the part of sports fans. By and large, across the fan boards I visit they seem to be ok people who, at times get angry enough to say often times horrible things about owners, GMs coaches and players-almost libelous things.

A pertinent aside here-I spent some time digging around a while back to see if other team fan forums had any Snyder-related threads-almost all do sometimes several on one board, including one on a Denver Broncos fan board entitled "Dan Snyder-Awful Human Being"-apparently it isn't just Skins fans-do tell. And, by the way, all of them have Haitian earthquake relief donation collection threads and sites up and running. I commend Snyder for what he's doing, but I do not accord to it any "exceptional" level of moral impact than the efforts of anyone else. Which, of course leads into a question you raised...

And what then about all the charity stuff? Does a pompous self-absorbed man earn any chits in his favor by being charitable. How about if he's REALLY charitable, as we learn more and more that Snyder seems to be? If we're someone disposed to hate someone for being an asshole, do we have any kind of moral responsibility to at least say, well, okay, he may be an asshole, but where it really matters he comes through time and again?

Short form-not really.

What I have trouble with here is the phrase "when it really matters". What happened toward the former employees of the Redskins organization immediately after Snyder took over doesn't qualify as "when it really matters?" Or the public embarrassment of Jason Campbell and humiliation of Jim Zorn-without any semblance of interest in at least appearing sensitive to the feelings of others. Just what do you mean by "when it matters"?

If you speak of non-football, disaster or charitable type giving fine, I'll give Daniel Snyder kudos for his generosity right now. I, for one, do not think the man is "the Devil incarnate" or anything close-he is a human being complete with pluses and minuses like everone. I posted, once, suggesting that his reason for keeping Vinny Cerrato around after Vinny's "resigtnation" was a personal interest in protecting his friend. The problem is this; to me his minuses are, to me at least, not erased by good deeds. Bill Gates earned the nickname "Barracuda" by his no-holds-barred competition-eliminating ferocity in the business world. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the largest private effort in history aimed at, among other things, working toward the elimination of hunger in the world. Does Bill Gates deserve recognition and accolades for this work-absolutely. Would I ever trust him in a business deal? No way in hell.

One more thing-after hearing the hideous remarks Pat Robertson made about the Hatian earthquake I had some pretty nasty thoughts about the man's character. I don't know him personally-and I have inferred from what you wrote that that disqualifies me from having an opinion of him-I must, in all honesty, inform you that I do not acknowledge that constraint.

 

[brandies]

Snyder always reminded me of Mother Teresa

 

[hail2skins]

If we're someone disposed to hate someone for being an asshole, do we have any kind of moral responsibility to at least say, well, okay, he may be an asshole, but where it really matters he comes through time and again?

But Om, "where it really matters" is how someone treats people on a day-to-day basis.......at least in my book.

I write the above sentence without having any personal interaction with the man. But I will say this.......people tend to be compared with those in similar positions, and the contrast between Snyder and Ted Leonsis appears striking. Prior to yesterday's games I was watching Comcast and they had a show about the Caps and they showed multiple scenes of Ted on the concourse at Verizon Center, interacting with the fans. And I believe he was known to do this even before the Caps success has taken hold in the past 2-3 seasons.

A couple of seasons ago I was riding up the escalator at FedEx to the club level on the side of the stadium that passes the owner's concourse. Snyder was walking along with some of his associates and numerous fans on the escalator were calling out "Hey Mr. Snyder" or "Hey Dan!" Do you think the guy could've at least summoned up a simple wave of acknowledgement? Nope, just straight ahead, looking down, hands stuffed in his pockets.

Now, I'm not saying that I'm necessarily expecting Snyder to hobnob with the fans at FedEx......maybe that's not his style......and will allow that perhaps he was preoccupied with something the day at FedEx. But still, with some of the stories I hear, particularly from Sarge.......its a little troubling.

You also asked "Why then is Snyder hated, when every other pompous self-absorbed putz we meet every day is simply ignored or dismissed as not worth our bile?" I honestly don't think that many of us truly HATE Snyder, considering we have not had personally interacted with the guy. And I will submit that those "pompous, self-absorbed putzes" that we meet in everyday life are not so easily dismissed as you think.

 

[Om]

I seem to have struck a nerve. So much for keeping it light on the "Daily" front.

Don't have time this morning to offer considered responses worthy of some of your posts, gentlemen, so if I may, a couple quick things to not leave the issue hanging:

1) for those capable of making the kind of intellectually engaged, articulate discussion points on a subjective, personal and emotional matter like this ... I hope it was clear that the original piece was not aimed at you. You're not the ones taking uninformed, follow-the-crowd potshots at Snyder at every opportunity without any regard at all to whether the man is a living, breathing, three-dimensional human being or the one-dimensional cartoon character he has been made out to be in many quarters.

2) "when it really matters" was a poor choice of words for me to use. To even begin to defend it now I would have to go down the moral equivalency road (3.5 million perhaps suddenly and in many cases terminally dispossessed Haitians "mattering more" on the tragedy scale than, say for example only, a couple dozen unfairly, rudely dismissed office workers) ... and that's just not a discussion I'm prepared to have over Dan Snyder. So my apologies for a lazy, unfortunate choice of words.

3) serv, you in particular seemed personally offended in that I somehow suggested you were disqualified from having an opinion on someone simply because you don't know him personally. I'd like to think what I wrote was somewhat less narrow and a little more enlightened, but to the extent you walked away with that impression, rest assured I do not feel that way. You don't know me personally, and I suspect you have formed quite an opinion ... hopefully it's one that is not carved in granite this morning.

 

[servumtuum]

I seem to have struck a nerve. So much for keeping it light on the "Daily" front.

Don't have time this morning to offer considered responses worthy of some of your posts, gentlemen, so if I may, a couple quick things to not leave the issue hanging:

1) for those capable of making the kind of intellectually engaged, articulate discussion points on a subjective, personal and emotional matter like this ... I hope it was clear that the original piece was not aimed at you. You're not the ones taking uninformed, follow-the-crowd potshots at Snyder at every opportunity without any regard at all to whether the man is a living, breathing, three-dimensional human being or the one-dimensional cartoon character he has been made out to be in many quarters.

2) "when it really matters" was a poor choice of words for me to use. To even begin to defend it now I would have to go down the moral equivalency road (3.5 million perhaps suddenly and in many cases terminally dispossessed Haitians "mattering more" on the tragedy scale than, say for example only, a couple dozen unfairly, rudely dismissed office workers) ... and that's just not a discussion I'm prepared to have over Dan Snyder. So my apologies for a lazy, unfortunate choice of words.

3) serv, you in particular seemed personally offended in that I somehow suggested you were disqualified from having an opinion on someone simply because you don't know him personally. I'd like to think what I wrote was somewhat less narrow and a little more enlightened, but to the extent you walked away with that impression, rest assured I do not feel that way. You don't know me personally, and I suspect you have formed quite an opinion ... hopefully it's one that is not carved in granite this morning.

As a note of reassurance and clarification;

1.) On this point, the fault may indeed be mine-I did, apparently incorrectly, infer the general direction of comments to be aimed at Redskin fans-particularly those posting here as well as on other boards-in which case the interpretive error was mine and I responded rather defensively This is why I brought up the issue of how fans generally in general react.

2.) Om, my friend, I must agree that the word choice was unfortunate-somewhat vague and it opened too many avenues of interpretation. Hey, nobody's perfect-and given the consummate skills as a wordsmith you manifestly display with almost every piece of your writing, this is an easy one to overlook.

3.) Again, mea culpa for being overly sensitive. I will honestly admit that the idea of someone, or a group of "someones" deliniating parameters and criteria limiting my thinking is distasteful to me and I overreacted accordingly.

My opinions are almost never "carved in granite". They are subject to change as information arrives. Yes, Om, I have formed an opinion of you, getting to know you as I have across two forums, TN and BGO and let me tell you-it is a very positive one. You are on that short list of people that I've encountered online that I seriously would like to meet in person sometime.

 

[LoyalSkinsFan]

As one or two of you may know (I'm talking to you, Mark) thru both social and work circles I've come in relatively close contact with Mr. Snyder. Thru first person accounts I've heard stories of his behavior......pretty consistent with what you hear in the press. Of course, I didn't see these situations myself, so you never know, do you? I did, on one occasion, meet Mr. Snyder in person. I must say, he was nothing but polite, engaging, respectful and warm.

He may genuinely want to give to charity for charity-sake.....he may do it solely for tax and financial reasons. In the end, though, the result is the same so to me, it's all good.

I can't possibly say that I know Dan Snyder.....I don't know what he really hopes to get out of his relationship with the Redskins - the team - or with the legions of fans that follow them. In the end, though, if the club functions and performs in a respectable manner and becomes a winning franchise once again......then, to me....again......it's all good.

HTTR

 

[Lanky Livingston]

I don't care if Snyder is a good or bad guy. I just want the Redskins to not suck.

Is that wrong?

Blog nominated.