Every once and awhile, there's a wrestling story that comes along
that turns the IWC into a feeding frenzy of orgasm, opinion, and
second-guessing. These stories are so big, every forumer, every
blogger, every `net writer chimes in with commentary. You can't
avoid it, and you can't help wanting to add in your two cents'
worth. Of course, in some cases, it's been so long ago, and so many
people have pontificated on the story that to say anything would be
to regurgitate the same conclusion hundreds of people have already
arrived at. In that case, it's better to be brief than redundant.

The Matt Hardy story is just that kind of story.

I will condense my thoughts into short bullet points for those of
you who didn't check out my post at The Wrestling Blog and want to
know how I felt:

*It's not a work.
*Matt Hardy made the right choice in coming back.
*I missed the first half of the angle because I was watching Sci-Fi
Channel.
*If WWE resists making Matt Hardy a regular character on RAW for
awhile, he could end up being bigger than John Cena. That is, of
course, a BIG `if.'
*It will take some doing to explain away 6 months of on-air story to
make Matt Hardy vs. Edge make sense to non-`net fans.

+And then there was Muhammad Hassan. As if karma itself came down to
Earth just to stick it to Vince McMahon, a terrorist attack killed
over 50 people in London. This occured the same week as the Hassan
character debuted what appeared to be a new stable of masked thugs
in camouflage who bore an uncanny resemblance to many of the
terrorists seen in hostage videos out of Iraq.

The UK airing of SmackDown did not contain the segment in question.
For the U.S. airing, WWE decided not to edit out this stable's
beatdown of The Undertaker that those in the knee-jerk reaction camp
of the IWC labeled "offensive." Naturally, the man leading the
charge was Dave Meltzer, who immediately deemed Vince McMahon
callous and insensitive, willing to do anything for a quick buck.
It's to be expected from the routinely self-righteous Meltzer, who
spends his every waking hour covering an industry that he often
times seems to loathe (in between rants about Pride, or whatever
bloodsport he's most enamored with at the moment.) Say what you will
about me and everyone else at 411, but I don't make a profit off of
this. I don't get paid to write about a product I may or may not
even approve of.

Almost a full WEEK later, the mainstream media picked up on the
story, with Variety and the New York Post both lambasting WWE for
its insensitivity. WWE responded, as they usually do, with their own
perplexing brand of spin.

Kevin Dunn, WWE's production guru, is quoted in the Post as
saying, "We're very proud of our product. We try and be sensitive
with everything we portray, but there's got to be protagonists and
antagonists on our TV shows. We just happen to reflect the politics
of the world sometimes--especially with these Arab-American
characters."

He also makes it clear that the angle was "tongue and cheek." I
don't know who's more full of shit, those who wag their finger for
the millionth time at yet another example of wrestling's lowest
common denomenator background or the jerkoffs who try to cover it up.

Wrestling is, for the most part, crap. Why do you think RD Reynolds
was able to launch his website, amass thousands of fans, and secure
a book deal without any legitimate credentials in wrestling other
than being a manager for a few months on the indie circuit?
Wrestling is full of awful, awful stuff, and that's one of the
reasons people like us enjoy it. We love to get pious when something
absurd ends up on TV, like Katie Vick or Snitsky's foot fetish, but
we continue to come back. What does that say about you, me, or even
Dave Meltzer?

When you buy your ticket, when you order your PPV, you are
saying, "Yes, I am willing to give you my hard earned money in
exchange for the right to sample your wares." It's not an explicit
acceptance of the product, but it is an implicit endorsement. I
don't know how many times I've heard, "WWE has really crossed the
line this time!" in the last 8 years. The Screwjob, D-X, Val Venis,
The Godfather, Austin being crucified, Mae Young's hand, Katie Vick,
HLA, Billy and Chuck, Viscera, the Mexicools, and now this. What
more do you need to see? How many more lines are there for WWE to
cross before you move on? Does Vince have to have a mock rape on TV?
Well, considering Viscera's newest in-ring taut, they've probably
already done that. Maybe he needs to kill someone? How about Triple
H? No, too many people would enjoy that.

Understand one thing: wrestling IS the bottom of the legitimate
entertainment barrel. Don't think it's just Vince McMahon either.
The NWA was trotting out jingoistic gimmicks left and right. Nikita
Koloff is only one example. Racism wasn't out of bounds either.
Harlem Heat were originally supposed to have an escaped slave
gimmick. Homophobic gimmicks are all over the indie landscape.

I don't expect people to stop watching WWE though. I don't expect
people to stop being a part of the IWC. I don't even expect people
to cease flipping shit at Vince McMahon. All I expect is that those
of you whose sense of decency kicks in every time WWE does
something "offensive" at least consider the fact that you still
spend your days enjoying something you find reprehensible. Try and
rationalize that. I don't know if you can. I don't know if I can.
[Credit: Wrestlingobserver.com]

TNA NEWS:

+Still no TV deal…

WHOOPS!