Stupid Is As Stupid Does

For a nation that acts as though it’s filled with the smartest brains in the world, we sure have some stupid institutions.

Now, I’m not talking about stupid individuals doing stupid things.  The Darwin Awards (“We salute the improvement of the human genome by honoring those who remove themselves from it in really stupid ways.  Of necessity, this honor is generally bestowed posthumously”) does a fine job of recognizing individual stupidity.

I’m not even talking about the Minnesota Vikings.

(Quick aside -- the Internet Movie Database reports that a film entitled The Darwin Awards is currently in post-production, with a bizarro cast that includes Joseph Fiennes (Will Shakespeare from Shakespeare in Love), David Arquette (Dewey from the Scream series), Winona Ryder (shoplifting), Chris Penn (Sean Penn’s brother, Nice Guy Eddie from Reservoir Dogs), Tim Blake Nelson (Delmar from O Brother, Where Art Thou?), Julianna Margulies (Nurse Carol Hathaway from “ER”), Juliette Lewis (Natural Born Killers), Nora Dunn (“Saturday Night Live”), and Wilmer Valderrama (Fez from “That ‘70s Show”).  The plot?  “A forensic detective (Fiennes) and an insurance claims investigator (Ryder) trek to investigate a potential Darwin Award winner.”  Gotta love Hollywood.  I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.)

(And all I have to say about the Vikings is that this never would’ve happened if Randy Moss was still in Minnesota.)

No, I’m talking about institutions, cooperative human ventures in which collective brain power is employed to ponder, discuss and debate decisions before they are made.  Stupid ideas are not supposed to survive such close scrutiny.

But sometimes they do.

Like earlier this summer, when according to the Sunday, October 16, edition of the New York Times, the brain trust at Anheuser-Busch launched a game it called Bud Pong, “providing Bud Pong tables, balls and glasses to distributors in 47 markets, including college towns like Oswego, N.Y., and Clemson, S.C.”

“The company, which makes Budweiser, is promoting Bud Pong tournaments and Bud Pong may soon expand into more markets, said Francine Katz, a spokeswoman for Anheuser-Busch Companies Inc.,” the article continues.  Ms. Katz added, “It’s catching on like wildfire.  We created it as an icebreaker for young adults to meet each other.”

Which is probably why so many young adults were enjoying games of Bud Pong with their milk and cookies.

Oh, I’m sorry, Anheuser-Busch wouldn’t condone the use of any hard stuff like that.  According to the article, Katz said the game “does not promote binge drinking . . . because official rules call for water to be used, not beer.  The hope is that those on the sidelines enjoy a Bud.”

Jessica Twilley, a bartender at the Esso Club near Clemson University, said she had worked at several Bud Pong events and had “never seen anyone playing with water.  It’s always beer.  It’s just like any other beer pong.”

Shocking.

And, equally shocking, three days later the Times reported that Anheuser-Busch was ending the Bud Pong promotion.  “Despite our explicit guidelines, there may have been instances where this promotion was not carried out in the manner it was intended.”  You think?

“As a company that has invested more than $500 million to promote responsible consumption among adults and to discourage abuse,” Katz added, “we believe it is important that our intentions with Bud Pong not be misperceived.”

This line of defense means they want us to believe one of two things:  that they were stupid enough not to see any of this coming, or that they thought college students were stupid enough to actually play beer pong with water.

But no matter how persuasive the messages from the brewing gods, college students can and will think for themselves.

Take, for example, Arkansas State University basketball player Jerry Nichols.  ASU’s leading returning scorer has had two knee operations, and was wearing adidas basketball shoes when he first hurt his knee.  However, Arkansas State is an adidas school, which means that its athletes are expected to wear team-issues shoes, which, in this case, means adidas.

Understandably, Nichols isn’t too thrilled about the idea.  “I tore my ACL in adidas in junior college back in 2001, and I’m not comfortable wearing adidas,” Nichols said.

But why should that matter?  According to a story on ESPN.com Tuesday, Arkansas State athletic director Dean Lee met with Nichols on Monday, “and Nichols was told to wear adidas shoes or sit.  Nichols sat.”

Nichols isn’t trying to promote adidas’ competition; when he “practiced over the weekend while wearing Nike shoes,” he taped over the Swooshes in attempt to abide by the dress code.

According to Lee, that’s not good enough.  “We have a contractual agreement with [adidas], and it’s not any different than any number of other contracts with other schools,” Lee told the Jonesboro Sun.  “There is not any stipulation or any research that shows any shoes are worse than any others.”

Of course not.  Unless you go to Google Scholar and enter “basketball shoe research.”  Then you’ll only get about 2,400 results.

As you would expect in a situation with such grave consequences, “Lee said there is no room for compromise and that the school is obligated to put adidas shoes on the feet” of its athletes.

You’re probably thinking that this is the part of the story where the courageous coach demonstrates true leadership and stands up for the rights of his player, and for mildly intelligent citizens everywhere.

Sorry.  “I need all my players to be at practice, but it’s out of my hands,” said the brave ASU head coach Dickey Nutt.  “That matter is in the administration’s hands, so I’m just referring all questions to them.”

No, I’m not making that up.  His name really is Dickey Nutt.

Nichols is considering taking the university to court if it doesn’t allow him to wear his own basketball shoes.

Yes, you read that right, too.

But wait, there’s more.  Our final moment of institutional brilliance came earlier this week when the American Family Association decided that Mattel-owned dollmaker American Girl had simply gone too far.

American Girl, whose dolls are popular with the doll-loving set (read: girls), recently launched an initiative supporting Girls Inc., which, according to an Associated Press story, is “a national nonprofit organization which describes its mission as ‘inspiring girls to be strong, smart and bold.’”

The campaign is selling “I Can” wristbands, the proceeds of which “help support educational and empowerment programs of Girls Inc.”  The “I Can” initiative, according to American Girl,  “supports three specific Girls Inc. programs -- building girls’ skills in science and math, developing leadership skills, and encouraging athletic skills and team spirit.”

Well, you can certainly see why the American Family Association would be up in arms about that, can’t you?

“American Girl has won the trust of millions of conservative families,” said AFA special projects director Randy Sharp in the AP story.  “It’s very popular among the home school movement because of the values the company followed.  Now we find they’re teaming up with Girls Inc., which supports the very things we oppose.  It’s very troubling.”

The AFA evidently can see right through Girls Inc’s flimsy do-gooder facade, which suggests that the organization “has provided vital educational programs to millions of American girls, particularly those in high-risk, underserved areas,” and has identified Girls Inc. as a dangerous “pro-abortion, pro-lesbian advocacy group.”

They’ve slapped this label on Girls Inc., of course, because of the inflammatory statements on its website like, “Girls Incorporated affirms that girls and young women should make responsible decisions about sexuality, pregnancy and parenthood,” and, “Human Rights Watch has concluded that verbal, physical, and sexual harassment of lesbian students is widespread in U.S. high schools,” and because the site offers a resource list of books for girls who may be questioning, or who have friends who are questioning, their sexual identity.

Now, I understand that the AFA has a right to take a stand for or against anything they want, just like I have a right to mock them when they decide to encourage their constituents to stop buying dolls and wristbands because they might provide support to an organization that provides support to lesbians.

But to suggest that American Girl’s decision to partner with Girls Inc. “casts a great shadow over their trustworthiness to put the welfare of girls and children first”?  Come on.  They make dolls.  They’re giving some money to a non-profit organization that wants to help girls in science and math.  You’re really protesting this?

As an alternative, let me suggest this to the obviously over-agitated folks at the AFA:  Relax.  Maybe go out and play some Bud Pong.  I’m sure if we called up Dickey Nutt, he’d be happy to join in.