Talking Deflategate to kids

Submitted by WestQuad on February 4th, 2018 at 10:13 AM
Today my 7 year old son said he hated Tom Brady. When I asked why my 5 year old chirped in “because he’s a cheater.” Evidently some kid named Dylan told them about deflategate. I told my kids:

1. Tom Brady went to Michigan and Michigan players don’ cheat.

2. Brady will have played in 8 Super Bowls and will have won 6, more than any other player.

3. Temperature was the likely cause http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/ot-deflategate-thought-experiment-could-bal…

4. Their little friend Dylan is a douche bag and should shut the hell up.

What do tell your children about Tom Brady?

Comments

SpilledMilk

February 4th, 2018 at 10:23 AM ^

But if Tom wouldn't have destroyed his phone, this would be a non story. There is going to be people out there who remain convinced that he destroyed his phone in an attempt to hide evidence.

UM Griff

February 4th, 2018 at 10:25 AM ^

And watch how he plays the game. Jealousy on the part of other fan bases accounts for most of the criticism of TB; we are watching a player/coach duo that we will be unlikely to see again in our lifetimes.

mGrowOld

February 4th, 2018 at 10:28 AM ^

I'd say son.   This is Tom Brady's wife

Image result for tom brady wife

Son...this is Tom Brady's house

 

Image result for tom brady house

 

Son....here are Tom Brady's Super Bowl rings

Image result for tom brady super bowl rings

 

Tell your little friend Dylan he's a fucking idiot.

 

crg

February 4th, 2018 at 2:03 PM ^

Mixed feelings about this post. Brady is obviously quite good at what he does and has earned most (if not all) of what he has. However, there is something to be said about the choices the he makes (and other people in similar situations make) with what they have. Married to a beautiful model who is a multi-millionaire in her own right - not bad. But, how much money does a couple really need? Considering that many of the people who are going to be watching him (and others like him) play tonight might be struggling to even pay rent of feed their kids, it does bring some harsh perspective into this. There should be something more about being a Michigan Man/Woman than just being talented and driven - but must also be (somewhat) circumspect and selfless. Nothing against Brady or other pro-athletes personally; I know many have some charitable activities (genuine or PR-driven is another issue), but seeing a picture of the McMansion here doesn't help the image.

badandboujee

February 4th, 2018 at 2:28 PM ^

What he or his wife are paid isn't really up to them. If the Pats or endorsement companies want to pay him, how is that a bad thing? Living in a mansion is acceptable when you're worth a combined 300 mill something

You could make a judgment based on what he chooses to do with his riches after football. He could try to make a difference in the world by helping the less fortunate and/or just have fun. For how competitive and ambitious he is, I think he will do something good. But for now it's all about them rings

crg

February 4th, 2018 at 2:53 PM ^

Just a few comments on your post: First, they absolutely do have a say in how much they are paid. They can negotiate compensation higher or lower; most people try for as much as they can get but some choose lower for various reasons (e.g. Harbaugh lowballing his salary a bit to give more to his assistants, but also Hackett donated half of his salary to charity while he was interim AD www.google.com/amp/s/articles.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2016/01/mi…). And even if someone just takes what is given to them, they also have control of what they do with it. Why would he need to wait until after football to do something charitable? He can still help people in the here-and-now without jeopardizing a long and comfortable retirement for him and his family. Again, I am not judging him because 1) I do not have enough information about his thoughts and resources and actions to do so fairly and 2) I am just a guy and do not claim any moral high ground over anyone else. However, I do ascribe to a moral code that people are at least partially responsible for the welfare of others (as do most adherents of the major religions) and the optics of the situation would make me uncomfortable if I were in that position.

crg

February 4th, 2018 at 3:20 PM ^

If it happened all at once, I would probably be running in the streets naked with joy.  After I had a few days/weeks for it to sink in, I would probably set aside enough to have a safe and secure life, then start giving away the rest to those who would truly need it and/or where it would do the most good.  Crazy idea, I know.

badandboujee

February 4th, 2018 at 3:28 PM ^

Well the sad truth is he's already contributed more to the welfare of others through his taxes, which are alone worth more than what most people make in a lifetime.

It's fine to believe that wealthy people should lend a hand to the poor people, but let's not forget that a lot of poor people are lazy and aren't willing to help themselves. This is America, not communist China

I personally would do something to help others, but it wouldn't necessarily be giving away money to poor people as you suggested. I'm more into helping people help themselves and if that's not possible, then get people off the streets and in functioning homeless shelters

crg

February 4th, 2018 at 3:35 PM ^

True, his taxes are probably doing more good that what most others conciously try to do.  The other side is, of course, think of how much good he could do if he made it his top priority.

People suffer (here and abroad) for a number of reasons; in some cases it is their own fault, but in many others it is not.  My wife is a teacher at an inner city charter school and comes home sometimes with stories that break my heart.  Last fall (2016) she learned that, 2-3 days before Thanksgiving, a young single mother (24-ish with 4 kids, oldest was 7-ish, and had a problem with drugs) blew her brains out in front of the youngest child while the others were in school.  The teachers ended up taking in some of the kids as a temporary foster arrangement, but those kids had practically nothing at home anyway.  Did the mother make several poor choices?  Absolutely.  Did it matter who's fault it was to the kids (multple fathers, all either in jail or skipped town from what I could tell)?  Probably not.  Are the people with $1M+ net worths to blame?  No, but how much money would it have actually taken to make this woman's life more bearable and maybe keep her from ending it?  Probably not enough for anyone with that kind of net worth to even notice.

crg

February 4th, 2018 at 3:38 PM ^

You keep  editing your comment, so here is an addendum to my response:

I'm not saying that directly giving it to the needy is the way to go, especially if they do not have the self control to manage it.  Butt in many cases it is not needed, there are already organizations and mechanisms in place to help people - they just need the support.

badandboujee

February 4th, 2018 at 3:52 PM ^

I agree with your sentiment that there are opporunities to help people out there and that not all poor people are lazy lotus eaters. Also, kids are without a doubt the most vulnerable and innocent and get my sympathy

In your example that mother probably suffered from extreme mental health issues due to various factors...god knows what. Our society as it is offers Medicaid to help poor people get access to healthcare. For some reason that system didn't work in her favor...but at the end of the day would money have helped her not kill herself? It's always easy to say money fixes things but I don't think you can look at that situation and say money was the only reason she did it. What if she got money and used it to take opiod prescriptions like rich white people?

crg

February 4th, 2018 at 4:13 PM ^

More about that specific case: earlier that same month, a number of the teachers at my wife's school (her included), got together to discuss the mother's situation. They knew that she had absoutely nothing (even worse than most of the families in that school - very low income neighborhood), so they wanted to do something to help her. The teachers all pooled together a large amount of their own food and delivered it to the mother's door. It was very moving to me because I know many of these teachers and they make very little anyway (that school does not pay well at all and most of those teachers have large families to take care of). The percentage of their weekly take-home that those teachers gave was easily double-digits. And this is just one example - there are many others for that group of teachers. Sadly, it was not enough to save that young woman - perhaps the mental issues were the reason or just the weight of the whole situation. Either way, if others could be that selfless and generous (proportionately), the world would be a much better place.

badandboujee

February 4th, 2018 at 4:21 PM ^

What those teachers did was admirable but if we're going back to the main point of money helping those less fortunate, you just showed how it's not always that cut and dry.

In my opinion, the intervention with money should have been earlier when that woman was deciding on having kids or not. I would be supportive of putting money towards behavioral interventions on a macro scale of helping many women like her make smarter decisions. If you make bad decisions, well, don't expect someone to come save you

crg

February 4th, 2018 at 4:30 PM ^

You are debating the downstream logistics (the how/when/where) of helping people - which is a legitimate concern and one that should not be taken lightly. I was concerned more with the upsteam logistics (who is actually driving these actions and/or funding them). And, fair or not, high net worth individuals can have a much greater impact in that department than the average person.