In Gene Wilder's world, a contract that reads "I, the undersigned do hereby et cetera et cetera signed Charlie Bucket" is an executable agreement.  Over at the four letter, many commentators and old guard writers closely associated with the four letter, have apparently passed Gene Wilder Esquire's legal course.

The excuse I often read here, or hear from the commentators themselves is that "I am an opinion show."  One would think that "opinion" is a word that defines itself, but for those paid to give it, opinion=gospel according to me.  So yes it is your opinion, but it is no more right than another opinion, or gasp, facts.

The man that can be added to the growing list that already includes Bill Conlin and Stephen A Smith, is Colin Cowherd.  It is no surprise that Colin would draw my ire here at IJWMFTT.  Sure my ire is just opinion, but ESPN ombudsman  seems to be somewhat of an ally.

If you recall, Bill Conlin jokingly, unkowingly, or frankly ambivalently suggested a blogger genocide would be a good thing.  Stephen A Smith suggested that blogs should be regulated or held to a standard like his profession, a profession responsible for a publication like this.  But that's a bad paper.  What about the Times?  See, there's good and there's bad.  You have to accept them both.

Colin Cowherd recently blasted Brian Roberts for invoking God in his apology for steroid usage.  I'm not here to parse the words of the dozens of apologies that we will hear in the coming weeks.  I agree, to say that one is regretful as soon as the needlt breaks the skin may be a stretch.  Where was the regret with all of the activity exhausted to acquire the needle?  More over, to say that this apology only comes forward with the Mitchell Report in the open is a fair statement.  So it is natural to question: are you sorry for the action, or sorry that you have to say you're sorry?

But what is the problem for using "the G word" in an apology?  Don't worry folks - we're headed in the g word direction.  I made a slight mention of Tony Dungy's "transgression" in a post primarliy about Brian Billick.  I noted that people started questioning him after having the gaul to exercise his rights beyond that whole free speech portion of the first amendment.  If someone wants to say that invoking God in sports speeches is not a free pass, then I am fine with that.  This is a world of mortals, and we are left to answer to one another while we are here. 

That said, it is not wrong for someone to opine, but to prosthelize that: "Don't use God as a prop in the face of crisis.  Keep it to yourself" is wrong.  It's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.  It's always funny to hear a broadcaster say things like "Don't like what we say, change the station."  But when the religion portion of the equation is involved, censorship is the proper course of action.  Listen up media: you wanted Brian Roberts' statement.  You got Brian Roberts' statement.  Stop trying to remake that statement in your own image. 

Note: I'm not trying to suggets that every seeing eye single is an act of God.  But I've heard and read a lot of mockery recently, so I wanted to comment on it in one lump sum.

A sampling of religion and sports mixing for the good, bad, or whatever.