Tom Brady might be the greatest NFL quarterback of all time. But more importantly, he is a terrible, awful, horrible person who doesn't deserve the rights of every average American citizen.
I say that about Brady, the New England Patriots quarterback, not because he's hogged more Super Bowl appearances than any quarterback in NFL history, nor because he's likely richer and better looking than you or me.
Brady isn't a terrible, awful, horrible person because he played for Michigan, although that won't buy him much sympathy around here.
Instead, Brady is a terrible, awful horrible person because Nancy Armour of USA Today says he is.
Who is Nancy Armour? Well, I've never met her, but she's apparently very important because she gets to erase Brady's Constitutional rights based upon her assumption that he's friends with and supportive of President Donald Trump.
How does Nancy Armour know Brady is friends with Trump? Because in September, a Make America Great Again hat that appeared in Brady's locker.
Trust me, I am just as shocked as you that Tom Brady is even eligible to play in the Super Bowl with an egregious, hateful thing like that on his record.
Of course, it is remotely possible a teammate placed the Make America Great Again hat in Brady's locker, since NFL locker rooms are notorious for practical jokes.
But let's assume Brady put it there.
Exactly what should that egregious act subject Tom Brady to?
According to the all-knowing Nancy Armour, "in refusing to publicly disavow Trump's actions, Brady is giving tacit endorsement to both Trump and the chaos he has created.''
Yeah, either that, or Brady is simply exercising his right as an American citizen to answer whatever questions he desires and ignore whatever questions he desires, assuming he's not under oath in a court of law.
I'm pretty sure scores of American soldiers have fought, died and served to protect that right, among many that fall under the banner of this little thing called, freedom, which Nancy Armour and her USA Today editors apparently missed in civics class.
Sorry 'bout it, Nancy, as inconvenient as it is for you to grasp, Tom Brady doesn't jump at your command, and he, not you, can pick his friends.
Assuming this is still the America, and assuming McCarthyism, or its modern equivalent, Armourism, is frowned upon.
I'd dismiss Armour's ravings as those of an unhinged loon if they weren't parroted by ESPN's Radio's Robin Lundberg on Tuesday morning.
Lundberg scolded Brady as, "weak," for dismissing questions about Trump at Super Bowl media day. Then he lectured that Brady should be "made to answer" for his presumed relationship with the newly-elected President.
I can't respond to that idiocy any more eloquently than this Twitter follower:
Whatever one's opinion regarding Trump or his politics, the, "liberty," aspect of that whole, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" part of the Constitution allows Brady and every other citizen to make their own decision about whether they expose their political leanings.
Brady opened a bit of window into his mindset this week on his regular appearance on WEEI Radio in Boston:
"Why does that make such a big deal?” Brady said about his supposed friendship with Trump. “I don’t understand that…I don’t want to get into it, but just – if you know someone, it doesn’t mean that you agree with everything that they say or do. Right?"
I'm with you, Tom. I have scores of friends who think differently politically than I do. Radically differently. It doesn't make them bad people. It just makes them different.
It's funny how the people who supposedly celebrate diversity and excoriate anyone they deem not inclusive can't tolerate political opinions different from their own or include anyone among their circle of friends who thinks differently than they do.
Actually, it isn't funny, at all.
Actually, it's appallingly intolerant.
Listen to Bruce Hooley 6-9 a.m. Monday-Friday on 1057 The Zone.P