The Analogy is Clear

It's well known that NBA stars don't like to take on political topics lest it hurt them with their sponsors. The really clever ones, though, like Gilbert Arenas just slip their commentary under the radar screen through the use of analogy and metaphor. Here, for example, are Agent Zero's thoughts on Iran:

There are these things called shark attacks, but there is no such thing as a shark attack. I have never seen a real shark attack.

I know you’re making a weird face as you’re reading this. OK people, a shark attack is not what we see on TV and what people portray it as.

We’re humans. We live on land.

Sharks live in water.

So if you’re swimming in the water and a shark bites you, that’s called trespassing. That is called trespassing. That is not a shark attack.

A shark attack is if you’re chilling at home, sitting on your couch, and a shark comes in and bites you; now that’s a shark attack. Now, if you’re chilling in the water, that is called invasion of space. So I have never heard of a shark attack.

Sharks, sure. He's just talking about sharks.

Comments

Remember The Air Jordan refusing to do the Right Thing with his "Republicans buy shoes too" douchebaggery. As Chuck Pierce noted:

Had Jordan been as willing to be as reckless with his influence on the stump as he was with his money at the blackjack table, poor Harvey Gantt might now be in his third term as senator from North Carolina.

Gantt's not the only one who suffered from Jordan's lack of decency. North Carolina and the rest of humanity took that pretty hard too.

Nice to know the Agent Zero's not Jordanesque in this regard.

Posted by ed | August 1, 2007 11:26 PM

landshark!

Posted by rufustfyrfly | August 1, 2007 11:35 PM

Sharks, sure. He's just talking about sharks.

But Iran? No.

He's backing you up on your view of the 2nd Amendment and the DC gun registration/ownership statute.

Clearly.

Posted by SoCalJustice | August 1, 2007 11:47 PM

Maybe.

Or maybe Gilbert is watching Shark Week.

Posted by Phenomenal Swag | August 2, 2007 12:01 AM

I wasn't able to get out to the Goodman Street League on Sunday. Can you post your impressions of how totally awesome Durant will be next year? Is he the next Magic Johnson?

Posted by Sam | August 2, 2007 12:02 AM

Hmmm, I'm pretty sure that Arenas stole that bit from a recent "Bad Boys of Comedy" special, hosted by the artist known as P. Diddy. The fact that there's such an obvious Iran angle is not surprising, given Diddy's well known neorealist views.

Posted by rd | August 2, 2007 12:11 AM

But the mean shark president said he wanted to push the nice school of dolphins all the way into the ocean!

Posted by Christopher M | August 2, 2007 12:55 AM

"if you’re chilling at home, sitting on your couch, and a shark comes in and bites you; now that's a shark attack." That also would be absolutely terrifying.

Now I can't sleep. Thanks a lot.

Posted by David Schraub | August 2, 2007 2:34 AM

Arenas is wrong. George Bush is a bottom-feeder, and sharks are not.

But they both share primitive brains.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 2, 2007 2:53 AM

Actually I doubt he had any particular political view in mind. Rather he seems to absorbed the self loathing of the human race so common these days. In what sense is a small child paddling in the shallow waters off Florida asking to be eaten? Since when is every patch of sea the private property of a few sharks? You see where the specious analogy falls down? If someone punches a shark, they are asking to be bitten. I'll agree to that. If someone goes surfing off a Californian seal colony at dawn, I'll agree they are foolish. But rights are mutual things and as sharks do not respect ours, much less the poor seals, we have no reason to respect theirs. Unlike, say, Iran.

So it is just sloppy thinking and moral bankruptcy. Very fashionable I am sure, but one more step to extinction.

Posted by HeiGou | August 2, 2007 6:09 AM

HeiGou 1, Gilbert Arenas 0.

Posted by Media Glutton | August 2, 2007 6:13 AM

Nah, Gilbert still wins.

The kid paddling in the surf has plenty of options for aquatic entertainment without going into a shark's natural habitat. If a bull shark takes a bite at a kid, he is not out to murder a helpless child - he's snapping at movement on instinct, just like his brain his hardwired to do. The kid's parents chose to put the kid in that position, so they're at fault. But the shark is not disrespecting the kid's "rights" --- the shark knows no property rights. The shark only knows instinct.

A shark will never interfere or intrude upon the natural habitat of a human being. They will only act naturally within their own habitat. Gilbert has the right of it.

Wandering blithely into the natural habitat of the shark, getting bitten, and thus claiming that we have no need to respect the shark's habitat because of such "provocation" is the logic of an idiot, or someone who doesn't much like sharks.

Posted by tequila | August 2, 2007 6:53 AM

In related news, Kevin Garnett's departure from Minnesota has apparently lead to the entire city collapsing.

Posted by Petey | August 2, 2007 7:03 AM

And what's the deal with HeiGou?

Given the lack of political sophistication and the limited intelligence displayed in his comments, I don't get the joke.

Is he just an idiot, or is there some level of irony I'm not picking up on?

Posted by Petey | August 2, 2007 7:08 AM

Posted by tequila | August 2, 2007 6:53 AM:"The kid paddling in the surf has plenty of options for aquatic entertainment without going into a shark's natural habitat."

Sorry but since when is the beach any shark's natural habitat? For that matter, why is there is utter insistence that sharks and not humans have some "natural" right to shallow waters? Humans seem to have always loved shallow water and usually expand that way before moving inland.

Posted by tequila | August 2, 2007 6:53 AM:"If a bull shark takes a bite at a kid, he is not out to murder a helpless child - he's snapping at movement on instinct, just like his brain his hardwired to do."

Obviously a shark cannot murder because they have no rights, not duties and do not form intent, but how can you claim knowledge of what every single shark is out to do? What is more Bull Sharks may hunt in packs - that is not instinct.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1544350.htm

Posted by tequila | August 2, 2007 6:53 AM:"The kid's parents chose to put the kid in that position, so they're at fault."

They are only at fault if they have a reasonable expectation of danger. Millions of children paddle in shallow seas and very very few of them get taken by sharks.

Posted by tequila | August 2, 2007 6:53 AM:"But the shark is not disrespecting the kid's "rights" --- the shark knows no property rights. The shark only knows instinct."

Which would be my point entirely. As the shark knows nothing of our rights, nor do we have to respect the shark's rights.

Posted by tequila | August 2, 2007 6:53 AM:"A shark will never interfere or intrude upon the natural habitat of a human being. They will only act naturally within their own habitat. Gilbert has the right of it."

The problem with that is "natural habitat" seems to consist of wherever a shark can reach. What is natural about, for instance, a fresh water lake? Moreover you are concentrating on one aspect of what is natural. It is damn sure that human beings do not form any part of the natural diet of any sharks outside East Africa.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/09/1044725665481.html

Why is it more natural for sharks to be there than swimmers? Does anyone doubt that if they could get out of the water and make it to your place, they would?

Posted by tequila | August 2, 2007 6:53 AM:"Wandering blithely into the natural habitat of the shark, getting bitten, and thus claiming that we have no need to respect the shark's habitat because of such "provocation" is the logic of an idiot, or someone who doesn't much like sharks."

I'll agree it is stupid to swim off seal colonies as the sun is going down. It is foolish to swim anywhere where meat is regularly added to the water. But that does not mean the entire wet part of the world is the natural habitat of sharks, or that there is any reasonable expectation that if I go for a swim of Long Island I am somehow asking to be eaten by a Great White. It is a risk I admit although probably not a big one. However the fact that we do not have to respect their rights is inherent in the fact that they do not respect ours or, say, your average fur seal's or anyone else's. There can only be rights with duties. That has nothing to do with where we swim but the nature of their brain functions.

Posted by HeiGou | August 2, 2007 7:16 AM

OK. Question answered. Just an idiot.

Posted by Petey | August 2, 2007 7:26 AM

HeiGou is right--we must bomb the sharks, in retaliation for the 3000 toddlers they ate off Florida beaches last year.

Posted by rea | August 2, 2007 7:29 AM

Somewhere, a shark is missing its HeiGou Breakfast Burrito.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | August 2, 2007 8:14 AM

HeiGou,

You may think that your trolling here is fighting a noble rearguard action against the decadent slide of our culture into fuzzy-headed liberalism, but you're actually just engaging in knee-jerk contrarianism that leaves you making and defending some pretty stupid claims. If you wish to be more effective in saving us from ourselves, I recommend you choose your battles more carefully.

Shorter me: Better trolls, please!

Posted by DMonteith | August 2, 2007 8:32 AM

"You may think that your trolling here is fighting a noble rearguard action against the decadent slide of our culture into fuzzy-headed liberalism, but you're actually just engaging in knee-jerk contrarianism that leaves you making and defending some pretty stupid claims."

I could handle his muddled thinking if his writing weren't so goddamn deadly. It's like reading tapioca pudding.

I really thought it was a gag at first.

Posted by Petey | August 2, 2007 8:39 AM

"HeiGou 1, Gilbert Arenas 0."-Posted by Media Glutton

Hey, now we know Tim Donaghy's screen name.

Posted by Njorl | August 2, 2007 8:46 AM

I could handle his muddled thinking if his writing weren't so goddamn deadly. It's like reading tapioca pudding.

Indeed. Brevity, being the soul of wit, also seems to have passed him by.

Posted by DMonteith | August 2, 2007 9:06 AM

Gilbert stole this joke directly from a comedian named Ian Edwards. You can see him perform it on Conan at about 3:33 on this youtube clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnXQD4aqb44

Posted by Dr. Victor Davis Handjob | August 2, 2007 9:44 AM

Posted by Petey | August 2, 2007 7:26 AM:"OK. Question answered. Just an idiot."

Posted by rea | August 2, 2007 7:29 AM:"HeiGou is right--we must bomb the sharks, in retaliation for the 3000 toddlers they ate off Florida beaches last year."

>Sigh

Posted by DMonteith | August 2, 2007 8:32 AM:"You may think that your trolling here is fighting a noble rearguard action against the decadent slide of our culture into fuzzy-headed liberalism, but you're actually just engaging in knee-jerk contrarianism that leaves you making and defending some pretty stupid claims. If you wish to be more effective in saving us from ourselves, I recommend you choose your battles more carefully."

It is not knee jerk contrarianism. To claim that somehow people have a horrible death coming to them because they engage in a perfectly innocent activity is part of the problem with the world as I see - at least large chunks of modern Western outlooks. There are no stupid claims I have noticed and I notice you have no pointed out any. Sharks attack people. The word "attack" is, despite MY and the guy he cites, perfect. They do not murder. They do not commit assault. They attack. They have no criminal intent. Now a baby that is savaged while paddling on the beach is not asking for it. Nor is it the fault of humans if they go for a swim after taking reasonable precautions and a shark happens to be passing by. This is just a variant on the "she was asking for it because she was wearing a miniskirt" argument. I am sure no one supports that here. People have a perfect right to paddle. They are not trespassing. I doubt that anyone much around here would apply this to humans even though it is vastly more apt - do you really think that if hundreds of people walk across a patch a forest I own with no fences or signs or marks of ownership, I can go around blowing away as many or as few as I like and it will be entirely their fault? Please. Why apply the same "logic" to sharks?

Posted by HeiGou | August 2, 2007 9:52 AM

Land Shark.

Posted by carsick | August 2, 2007 9:53 AM

Since when do people have a "right" to paddle around in water? In what document is that right enshrined? You don't have a "right" not to be eaten by a shark, any more than you have a "right" not to be struck by lightning if you're on a golf course. That kind of thinking is what's wrong with the modern Western outlook -the childlike belief that the natural world can and should be a risk-free place.

Posted by vanya | August 2, 2007 10:09 AM

Posted by vanya | August 2, 2007 10:09 AM:"Since when do people have a "right" to paddle around in water? In what document is that right enshrined? You don't have a "right" not to be eaten by a shark, any more than you have a "right" not to be struck by lightning if you're on a golf course. That kind of thinking is what's wrong with the modern Western outlook -the childlike belief that the natural world can and should be a risk-free place."

I have never even suggested anyone does have a right not to be eaten by a shark. In fact in about six posts I have said the exact opposite. Repeatedly and clearly. Sharks are, after all and please stop me if you've heard this before, outside the world of moral categories and rights.

What I repeat is that the shark does not have the right to eat you if you happen to stick a toe into the water. A shark may do so. You may ask for trouble. But you do not automatically deserve it if a shark happens to eat you while swimming in a river. We do not trespass on their rights. How is it humanly possible to be any more clear?

The world oughtn't be risk free. Who says otherwise?

Posted by HeiGou | August 2, 2007 10:13 AM

Ah, now I see. Step one, take joke literally. Step two, accuse joke teller of naivite and literalism based on obtusely literal reading of joke. Step three, victory!

Ex:
Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?
A: Chickens cannot form moral intent, your questions is therfore wrongheaded. Ergo, you're stupid and probably love Osama bin Laden.

Posted by justin | August 2, 2007 10:35 AM

>sigh...back at you.

I'll go slowly and point out what's stupid: no one thinks someone who is bitten by a shark while swimming at the beach was "asking for it". Furthermore, (and I can't believe that I am actually about to write this down) your "sharks don't respect human rights" claim is borderline comic genius, it's so stupid. The fact that it's true just adds to the hilarity. Come to think of it, gravity doesn't respect human rights either. And neither does photosynthesis, nor does the phase change of materials from liquid to gas. And last I checked, high tide was pretty indifferent to human liberty too.

At the risk of repeating the obvious, though the evidence points strongly towards the fact that repetition is required in your case, shit happens. If you go outside in a snowstorm, you might freeze to death. If you go for a walk in the woods, a tree might fall on you. A meteor might hit you as you sit in your living room watching American Idol (though in that case you might be asking for it). If you go swim in the ocean you might get eaten by a shark. Neither the right (or lack thereof) of these things to exist nor the care (or recklessness) with which you live your life has anything to do with these facts. Your right to engage in these activities is, of course, also irrelevant to the fact that, indeed, shit does happen. It is, however, unlikely that you will be eaten by a shark while walking in the woods or that a tree will fall on you while swimming at the beach. This is all pretty remedial stuff but I'm happy to help those in need.

I am willing to entertain the notion that you are not being a knee-jerk contrarian, but I'm going to require a lot more convincing to change my mind about the stupid.

Posted by DMonteith | August 2, 2007 10:59 AM

I know, I know...beating a dead horse, feeding the troll, etc...but still:

HeiGou, 10:15am:

I have never even suggested anyone does have a right not to be eaten by a shark.

HeiGou, 6:09am:

But rights are mutual things and as sharks do not respect ours, much less the poor seals, we have no reason to respect theirs.

Have another cup of Anti-coffee or whatever it is you're drinking.

Posted by DMonteith | August 2, 2007 11:11 AM

Sharks have no respect for property rights. In fact they feel they can just go wherever they want, and in fact when they eat humans they hurt the property rights of nearby resorts. Hei Gou is right; humans must bring a class-action lawsuit and various restraining orders and anti-loitering laws against sharks. Any shark who doesn't obey the new rules should do ten years hard time in that Arizona prison where they make the inmates live in tents and wear pink underwear. Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan warned us about this. Years and years of welfare nanny state mollycoddling and no prayer in schools destroyed these sharks' work ethic and sense of responsibility.

It's also possible that Iran is using the sharks as proxies against us, much like Hezbollah and Hamas against Israel. If Ahmadenijad doesn't publicly admit responsibility and back off funding the sharks, we should bomb Iran.

Posted by Spokeytown | August 2, 2007 11:16 AM

Iranians are lesser animals without our level of sentience, and are apt to savagely attack humans. We can't blame them for it, since reasoning with sharks is absurd.

Seems a bit... racist.

Posted by commenter | August 2, 2007 11:18 AM

Posted by DMonteith | August 2, 2007 10:59 AM:"I'll go slowly and point out what's stupid: no one thinks someone who is bitten by a shark while swimming at the beach was "asking for it"."

Really?

AgentZero:"So if you’re swimming in the water and a shark bites you, that’s called trespassing. That is called trespassing. That is not a shark attack."

Posted by tequila | August 2, 2007 6:53 AM :"The kid paddling in the surf has plenty of options for aquatic entertainment without going into a shark's natural habitat. If a bull shark takes a bite at a kid, he is not out to murder a helpless child - he's snapping at movement on instinct, just like his brain his hardwired to do. The kid's parents chose to put the kid in that position, so they're at fault."

I await your interesting analysis of these statements.

Posted by DMonteith | August 2, 2007 10:59 AM:"Furthermore, (and I can't believe that I am actually about to write this down) your "sharks don't respect human rights" claim is borderline comic genius, it's so stupid."

Thank you. I try so hard. The point you seem to miss is that people are asserting moral intent on the part of the shark - we do not "trespass" on their property because, obviously, they have none. It may be blindly obvious but it has also passed a significant number of posters here by.

Posted by DMonteith | August 2, 2007 10:59 AM:"At the risk of repeating the obvious, though the evidence points strongly towards the fact that repetition is required in your case, shit happens."

Well I am happy to see we are on the same page on this. Although quite where that leaves what you seem to think of as your argument is another matter. We do not "trespass" against snowstorms, trees, or meteors either.

Posted by DMonteith | August 2, 2007 11:11 AM:"I know, I know...beating a dead horse, feeding the troll, etc...but still:"

Sorry you are able to take a comment where I flatly assert that no one has any rights against sharks and somehow twist this into a claim that I asserted that we have a right not be eaten by sharks? Unbelievable. Take up a eating nails. There is a new career open for you as a maker of corkscrews.

Posted by HeiGou | August 2, 2007 11:21 AM

caaaaaaandy gram.

Posted by jake | August 2, 2007 11:23 AM

Spokeytown wins.

Posted by Petey | August 2, 2007 11:47 AM

This is "Shark Week" on the Discovery Channel. Coincidence?

Posted by Kevin | August 2, 2007 12:12 PM

Gilbert Arenas still has the best blog around, even if he did not come up with this on his own.

Posted by Neil | August 2, 2007 12:24 PM

Anchor, Chum and Bruce:I am a nice shark, not a mindless eating machine. If I am to change this image, I must first change myself. Fish are friends, not food.

.
.
.

Marlin: He's my son, he was taken by these divers...
Dory: Oh my, you poor fish.
Chum: Humans. Think they own everything.
Anchor: Probably American...

Posted by Njorl | August 2, 2007 12:47 PM

Are there no football fans in MY-land? Because this whole shark-metaphor is just begging to be converted into a dog metaphor on a Michael Vick's blog.

Posted by Fred | August 2, 2007 12:49 PM

Arenas and others who compare our ventures into the sea to trespassing are simply pointing out that humans do not need to be immersed in aquatic or marine habitats in order to satisfy their physiological and metabolic demands, whereas sharks do have that need. The non-instinctual decision to go into the water is usually (ship- or plane-wrecked sailors being the infamous exception) what enables a shark-human encounter. “Trespassing” may not be the ideal word, but the point remains that people who get bitten by sharks are usually in the water by choice whereas the sharks cannot survive outside of water and they cannot survive without striking quickly at prey of ambiguous identity. There is, of course, a broad spectrum on the stupidity/unnecessary scale. A Solomon islander who provides food for his family by freediving and spearfishing could certainly argue that he is doing what is both natural and necessary, whereas an American kid frolicking on a raft (little Alex Kintner in “Jaws”) is simply playing. “Rights” don’t enter into, never have, and never will. But either way, any human who knowingly and deliberately enters the ocean is certainly taking a specific kind of chance that they are not taking when, say, they take a walk in the woods . They’re not “asking for” or "deserving" harm, but they’re certainly increasing their odds of shark attack from zero to struck-by-lightning-while-taking-a-leak territory.

And HeiGou, schooling or aggregating behavior in bull sharks or other species does not mean that something other than instinct is driving them.

Posted by tinisoli | August 2, 2007 12:59 PM

Gilberto, plagiarist or not, is right on. Shark bites hurt a great deal; that doesn't mean stop surfing, that means, if you get bit, try your best to survive, but don't go out hunting sharks out of revenge. I mean, you looked like a fucking seal, asshole!

As for HeiGou: No.

Posted by Gregorio | August 2, 2007 1:42 PM

I suspect that, like a lot of NBA stars (e.g., Michael Jordan never learned to swim, despite spending enormous time at luxury hotels and country clubs), Gilberto isn't a swimming enthusiast!

Posted by Steve Sailer | August 2, 2007 3:46 PM

Shorter Steve Sailer:

I "suspect" that black people don't like water.

Posted by Justin X | August 3, 2007 1:48 AM