topcenter

WRESTLING COLUMNS

The Ultimate Pinhead Is At It Again
May 24, 2006 by Joe L.


Editor's Notes: There are lots of columns posted on various topics, and sometimes there are multiple columns with similar topics. If you read a column (ANY column) and decide to send in feedback, PLEASE be sure to indicate which column you are responding to by typing the TITLE of the column in the subject line. Also, DO NOT FORGET to sign your name. Thanks!


Last year, Jim Hellwig (also known as the Ultimate Warrior) made history when he went to the University of Connecticut where he was to give a political speech to liberal and conservative activists and made an idiot of himself, insulting democrats and homosexuals by making classy comments like how "Queering doesn't make the world work" and that "Homosexuals are nowhere near the same league as heterosexuals." The firestorm that followed put a severe dent in his reputation and made him the butt-joke of the wrestling world...which was way before the brutal hatchet-job that was the "Self-Destruction of the Ultimate Warrior" DVD.

Well, on April 4th 2006 when Mr. Gorilla Man himself attended the DePaul University to give a "lecture" to the activists, it was like deja vu all over again as the Ultimate Putz once again showcased his magnificent display of stupidity and ignorance towards a highly educated audience. Vince Russo needs not to worry anymore as the Ultimate Woyah has once again reclaimed the title of being "Wrestling's Biggest Dumbass."

A disgraceful human being, a talent-less wrestler and an ego the size of Texas, the Ultimate Warrior's political rants at the DePaul University was just as laughable as seeing a fat man do cartwheels. His wrestling is bad enough but his venturing through politics and then demoralizing all who oppose his view is insulting to the intelligence of a normal human being. The fact to the matter is this: Jim Hellwig has no political power or a political mind. Anything you read on his stupid website is scripted and not by the heart. And if it was told by the heart, it would be without logic, reason or sense. Because that is what the Ultimate Warrior is: a guy who has no logic or any sense. If April 4th 2006 proved anything, it is that Hellwig's political views are just as bad as his wrestling.

Before I go on, I just want everyone to know that I believe in freedom of speech. I may be Republican but I rightfully stand with the fact that everyone in North America is entitled to have their own opinions. Because in the words of Voltaire (this is a first in wrestling): "I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." If that's the case, we still have the right to differ with other people and we most certainly have the right to differ with the Ultimate Warrior...very LOUDLY!!

Yesterday, I managed to find some "highlights" of his lovely speech at the DePaul University and my replies toward them. If you want to check out these lovely highlights, bring in some popcorn and read on. I give my Thanks to WrestlingObserver.com for the information:

The first, and probably my favorite highlight of the speech is this:

"Gay and lesbian couples (which he referred to as queers and refused to change his verbiage during the lecture) have the same disease as pedophile priests in the Catholic Church.” Keep in mind this was at DePaul University -one of the largest catholic universities in America.

Why is this my favorite? Because it shows how out of touch the Ultimate Warrior is from reality. First off, who the hell is the Ultimate Warrior to go out and make comments comparing a homosexual's disease to a Catholic priest in a CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY?!! If this is how we should represent the United States, then we have achieved the fourth sign of the apocalypse. It's one thing to make a statement to the public but when you compare a STD to Catholic priests in a Catholic university, then you have sunk your own credibility as a political apologist.

Warrior states that Israeli's are "sub-human" because they fight with rocks.

How is this not offending? Your comments on them throwing rocks and being sub-human are deplorable because it dehumanizes their character and it cuts the logic down to pieces. It is as if you're implying that Israel is the enemy, not the terrorists, the perpetrators, not the victims. You think the Jews retaliate for fun? All they want to do is be left in peace but how can they be left in peace when anti-Semitic bastards like Bin Laden and several parts of France continue to incite violence at their homeland and families? The fact to the matter is that Jews are the most prosecuted people in the history of mankind and they deserve to have a home after decades being forced into endless wars and we, the American people, as well as the rest of the world not associated with anti-Semitism realize that.

What about you? What about all the cheapshots that you spat upon at the audience at the University of Connecticut, denouncing their sexuality? What about your comments on Todd Grisham and Droz when you referred to the former as a "queer" and the latter a "cripple"? It would make sense if they did anything to do but Grisham and Droz never said or did anything to offend you. If anyone's been throwing rocks at anybody, it is you.

And the fact is that Todd, Droz and the Jews, contrary to your views, are human. You? You're just a gorilla who went through plastic surgery to look like a man. I could have sworn you were trying to play with your banana during the speech.

He believes queers can't keep emotions to themselves.

Homosexuals have as much right to express how they feel as a straight person. They have as much right to differ from other people's opinions and they have as much right to differ from you. How is it in your mind that it's okay for you to bash Democrats at public speeches but it's not alright for the homosexuals to criticize your comments? Your views on democracy are biased, hypocritical and insensitive and your comments about "queers" illustrate that point.

When asked how he would feel if his daughter grew up to be a homosexual he replied she wont, she’s completely feminine in every sense of the word. Keep in mind she's about 5 years old.

First off, I find it hard to believe that a five-year old daughter of a completely demented man would say that she will never be a homosexual, no less than mention the word "homosexual" in her vocabulary. Second, why on Earth would any parent want to teach their own children sexual terms at five years of age when they are not old enough to understand yet? That's the point: the Ultimate Warrior does not understand anything period.

When a fan complimented him on slamming Andre the Giant warrior responded "go masturbate at home"

He made a joke, Warrior, even if it was a funny one. You could have just ignored him or say "next question". But that would make too much of a good sense for you. Instead, you made yourself the enemy, not the smart-alec fan.

Jack asked how he can go to colleges and promote intelligent debate on issues and how could he defend throwing the podium at his speech at Uconn, and he responded "what are you talking to me?" and the DePaul conservative said "he didn’t throw a podium...next question"

The Warrior could have easily said he will focus on the future, not letting the past get the best of him. But by saying "What are you talking about?", it shows his plain ignorance and how a person could get the best of him. It's just sad that even my dog could get the best of Warrior in a political debate.

Anytime a hard question was asked he would reply "your question doesn't make any sense"

Oh and you're the most creative mind in American history? Plus, how stupid are you for being asked a question and saying "I don't know."? If the Ultimate Warrior were President and give the press the same answer to all the tough questions, he'd be removed from the office in a matter of seconds. This one comment reflects everything about the Ultimate Warrior's political agenda: nothing but mindless sound and fury.

If there was any proof that the Ultimate Warrior is ignorant of his politics and towards other people's views, this was it. Last year, when he lambasted Democrats and homosexuals in attempt to make himself look like a big shot, he didn't make himself look like a hard-ass. He looked like an ass. Now he is tasting his own medicine and cannot stand the fact that people in the audience are generally smarter and more politically accurate than him. His speech at DePaul University proves that he is unfit to deliver proper views on the American society and his mind-bogglingly retarded words of wisdom on his equally laughable website come across more like a contrived script than an _expression of his own feeling. Add the fact that he's being the same character out of the ring as in the ring and-boom-an idiot that ought to be spoofed, parodied and made fun of on television sitcoms.

I know some people might compare Warrior to say Mick Foley and John Bradshaw Layfield, who are political spokesmen of their own parties. But the difference between those three are so simple even a toddler would make the right choice on who would represent America. And it's no surprise that I would pick Foley and JBL because these are two well-educated human beings who actually think before they say something, provides logical and reasonable proposes in their speeches and also tell it in a way that does not make them look foolish. The Warrior, on the other hand, supplies the subject, but not inspiration.

In the end, it's safe to say that the Warrior's venture into politics has been a complete, dismal failure.

by Joe L. --- [View Joe L's Column Index]..


Armando Nunez (Fayetteville N.C) wrote:
Is this guy for real? He reminds me of Don Quixote. Living in a fantasy world & fighting windmills thinking they're giants. Mr Hellwig is off his gourd.he's trying to revive an allready dead ass career by letting his opinnions (stupid as I add) by causing controversy. The only way to make Mr. Hellwig note that he is not an impact player, is just ignoring what he's doing. Just let him live on his fantasy world.
Tyler D wrote:
Thank you for writing this column. If there is anything more annoying than wrestlers who clutch and cling to their (in Warrior's case, nonexistent) legacies it's a washed-up, has-been celebrity who attempts to ressurect a dead career with political activism. I, like you, am a Republican, although I come from the almost forgotton Barry Goldwater wing of the party. I generally refer to myself as a libertarian, and I'm just as annoyed by Hellwig's homophobic penis-waving as I am with the love that people on the opposite side of the political spectrum have for government, taxation and regulation. When I see that nutcases like Hellwig are fast becomming the mainstream in the party, it's extremely discouraging.
Snotsnit wrote:
I totally agree with the authors comments. I don't think "The Warrior" knows that Israel has one of the best armies in the world. I don't think he knows that gay people are just as important if not more then he is. All this and much more, that is what is wrong with "The Warrior." I hope his daughter doesn't share his "views" when she is older. Thanks for a great article and keep them coming.
Matt Jordan wrote:
Yo, this column had nothing to do with wrestling. You just talked about some speech made by the Ultimate Warrior.
Jose Aguirre wrote:
Hey idiot, this is a wrestling website!!!! When you write a column you write about wrestling not politics. Nobody cares about YOUR liberal giberish, or Warrior's conservative B.S.
Joe (UK) wrote:
Excellent piece of work my good man. Whether or not the average man in the street would agree or disagree with your points it has to be said that this is a very well written column.

I do think that the door to the auditorium should have had Dante's words inscribed onto it whilst the Warrior was in attendance " Abandon faith all ye who enters here" --- Good work.
Dan Fassio wrote:
Joe, First off, I'd suggest a little more proofreading. Some of your commentary on the Warrior's obvious idiocy makes you sound similarly impaired, though I think these are unintentional errors:

1. "It's one thing to make a statement to the public but when you compare a STD to Catholic priests in a Catholic university, then you have sunk your own credibility as a political apologist."

Even if you hold the unfortunate viewpoint that homosexuality is a "disease", it certainly is not "sexually transmitted". Whether it is biology, or a lifestyle choice, you can't "catch the gay".

2. "He believes queers can't keep emotions to themselves."

Didn't you condemn him for using the same "verbiage" about seven paragraphs above this statement? If it is a direct quote, please assign the blame where it is due. I don't think you meant for it to sound this way, but honestly, at least use the PC term in a public forum.

Finally, I'd just like to take your point about Warrior to a further conclusion. Maybe we shouldn't care what wrestlers have to say about politics. I understand, as you say, that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but we have the right to listen or ignore that opinion. Thus, when buffoons like Hellwig try to gain public forum for their opinions, we should all ignore them. I really don't think we should look to wrestlers to "represent America" at all, just like we shouldn't look to celebrities who use their fame to posture on a political issue. Instead, we should be spending time looking to our own opinions on these issues.

And enjoying these wrestler's talents in the ring, of course.
Eero Kivinen wrote:
It's not every day you get to disagree with both an idiot and the person critisizing him. Fist of all: I agree that this kind of "lecturing" by The Ultimate Warrior is both offensive and plain B.S. at the same time. Gay people are only human beings and those who can't understand this should mind their own business; understanding doesn't require acceptance, but badmouthing something you have obviously no idea about is just plain wrong. Still, the comments by the columnist on the situation in Israel and Palestine, well, they are the kind I would expect from a Republican. Not all Arabs are terrorists and not all Israelis are simply victims. I recommend looking into history and not just listening to the news. It really was Israel who struck first. Anyway, this column was a great idea. I really enjoy reading about different things happening outside the ring. The Ultimate Warrior is a sad case, but his "antics" are always something to read.
A.K. wrote:
This is the first time I've felt compelled to leave a comment, and I'd like to say that for those who have figured out that this article does not have to do with wrestling, than give yourselves a pat on the back. No where in this article does Joe say the article is going to talk about the Warrior and his time in the wrestling world. If you are looking for those kind of articles then you'll find them on OWW. The point of this article from what I could see is to talk about the kind of person the Warrior is and it certainly isn't painting a rosy picture of him but it doesn't surprise me that the Warrior would follow up one public speech with an even more diabolical one. As it says on the guidelines, they want to hear everyone's opinions and that's why this article was posted so instead of giving heat about what the article is not, how about giving recognition to something that comes across as informative and distinguished. Okay OWW isn't a news site but if this article wasn't considered good enough to be posted, then they would not have posted it.
Erkka Järvinen wrote:
Many columnists on this site has nice columns, Langdom Beck and Jacob Kuhn just to name a few. But your pieces are just boring rants and hate columns. Take a break will ya and write something interesting for great justice...
robert thomas wrote:
i agree with "the warrior" on his views on gays. they are NOT important. they cannot reproduce which is all sex is for and a woman can do anything a gay guy can.So the ultimate warrior is NOT a pinhead you people are for believing gays are important
Tom C. wrote:
First, I should say that I found the contents of this article quite interesting. Second, I’ll state the clear fact that the article, along with many others posted on OWW, is not well written, and the article’s claims are not well argued for (well reasoned). We might expect such qualities as clarity, sound mechanics, and careful attention to argument, diction, and logic to be fundamental in any piece of intelligent writing. On the other hand, in Joe L.’s article about political views, we find a bit less, but especially in the ad hoc responses that ensue, which I will address.

In any case, Joe L., I am grateful for your written contribution. Perhaps more editing and attention can improve the clarity and accessibility of your writing in the future.

Regarding numerous responses posted under Joe’s article, I am somewhat disquieted. In particular, what Robert Thomas wrote, being also the most recent, makes the least sense. First, Robert’s response (angrily, or apparently so) states claims without supporting arguments; this means that we readers are given no reasons to accept or reject what he says. Yet supporting premises and their ensuing conclusions are necessary for any rational discourse (you should give reasons to support your claims). At the very least, if we want any grounds for evaluating the worth of what someone tells us, supporting reasons for accepting the arguer’s claims are paramount. All these rudimentary principles of argument can be found in any 100 level critical thinking text.

Let’s look at what Robert tells us and evaluate it. Robert says that gays are not important. That’s your first claim, Robert (aside from saying you agree with Warrior). Second (and I forgo some details, but see above), Robert tells us that gays cannot reproduce and that a woman can do anything a gay guy can do. These are Robert’s premises. Both statements are also false, precluding the possibility of a valid argument (both premises must be true and the argument sound). Perhaps what Robert means is that gays cannot reproduce with one another; that seems true enough, for the time being. Anyway, we can assume that both premises are true (they are not really). The conclusion, i.e., that gays are unimportant, does not follow from the premises at all. The argument is thus non sequitur and unsound (not to mention invalid). I will illustrate why, if it is unclear to anyone. Let’s say I can’t reproduce"am I now worthless or “unimportant?” I should hope not, at least, as a human being. And let’s say that a woman can do everything that I can do (which may be close to true of some woman, somewhere)"am I now unimportant or worthless? The answer would be no for any human being, which, despite some peoples’ biases, is a category that includes gays, lesbians, Jews, Palestinians, etc. To suggest otherwise is, I think, atrocious, but especially if based on such a feeble argument as the one Robert gives. So consider this a heads up.

Lastly, I have no idea how Robert’s ad hominem abusive made its way into the posted responses. He insults everyone who disagrees with his position by calling us “pinheads” without giving any rational rhyme or reason. Even if we did accept his position that gays don’t matter (and I do not hold such a horrible position), there is no reason to think that people who disagree would be pinheads (that would require an argument on its own, rather than an ardent declaration). Robert’s insults and similar unfounded insults to intelligent readers undermine the website’s aim at providing intelligent discourse.
Tom C. wrote:
First, I should say that I found the contents of this article quite interesting. Second, I’ll state the clear fact that the article, along with many others posted on OWW, is not well written, and the article’s claims are not well argued for (well reasoned). We might expect such qualities as clarity, sound mechanics, and careful attention to argument, diction, and logic to be fundamental in any piece of intelligent writing. On the other hand, in Joe L.’s article about political views, we find a bit less, but especially in the ad hoc responses that ensue, which I will address.

In any case, Joe L., I am grateful for your written contribution. Perhaps more editing and attention can improve the clarity and accessibility of your writing in the future.

Regarding numerous responses posted under Joe’s article, I am somewhat disquieted. In particular, what Robert Thomas wrote, being also the most recent, makes the least sense. First, Robert’s response (angrily, or apparently so) states claims without supporting arguments; this means that we readers are given no reasons to accept or reject what he says. Yet supporting premises and their ensuing conclusions are necessary for any rational discourse (you should give reasons to support your claims). At the very least, if we want any grounds for evaluating the worth of what someone tells us, supporting reasons for accepting the arguer’s claims are paramount. All these rudimentary principles of argument can be found in any 100 level critical thinking text.

Let’s look at what Robert tells us and evaluate it. Robert says that gays are not important. That’s your first claim, Robert (aside from saying you agree with Warrior). Second (and I forgo some details, but see above), Robert tells us that gays cannot reproduce and that a woman can do anything a gay guy can do. These are Robert’s premises. Both statements are also false, precluding the possibility of a valid argument (both premises must be true and the argument sound). Perhaps what Robert means is that gays cannot reproduce with one another; that seems true enough, for the time being. Anyway, we can assume that both premises are true (they are not really). The conclusion, i.e., that gays are unimportant, does not follow from the premises at all. The argument is thus non sequitur and unsound (not to mention invalid). I will illustrate why, if it is unclear to anyone. Let’s say I can’t reproduce"am I now worthless or “unimportant?” I should hope not, at least, as a human being. And let’s say that a woman can do everything that I can do (which may be close to true of some woman, somewhere)"am I now unimportant or worthless? The answer would be no for any human being, which, despite some peoples’ biases, is a category that includes gays, lesbians, Jews, Palestinians, etc. To suggest otherwise is, I think, atrocious, but especially if based on such a feeble argument as the one Robert gives. So consider this a heads up.

Lastly, I have no idea how Robert’s ad hominem abusive made its way into the posted responses. He insults everyone who disagrees with his position by calling us “pinheads” without giving any rational rhyme or reason. Even if we did accept his position that gays don’t matter (and I do not hold such a horrible position), there is no reason to think that people who disagree would be pinheads (that would require an argument on its own, rather than an ardent declaration). Robert’s insults and similar unfounded insults to intelligent readers undermine the website’s aim at providing intelligent discourse.
wrote:
While I would agree with you that the Ultimate Buffoon's views are as stupid as his in ring career, you need to check out a few facts and wake up to the Taster's Choice. What the Ultimate Moron was ranting is the same garbage from your modern day rightwing fascist Republican party. The Republicans regulary bash and smear gays, liberals, Democrats and anyone else who disagrees with their Hitler like views on world order, war and peace, and so forth on down the line. So before you break off in the Ulitmate Goofball's carcass check around the country and hear what your party is saying about everyone else. You would be ashamed of Republicans if you did..........
Richard wrote:
While I would agree with you that the Ultimate Buffoon's views are as stupid as his in ring career, you need to check out a few facts and wake up to the Taster's Choice. What the Ultimate Moron was ranting is the same garbage from your modern day rightwing fascist Republican party. The Republicans regulary bash and smear gays, liberals, Democrats and anyone else who disagrees with their Hitler like views on world order, war and peace, and so forth on down the line. So before you break off in the Ulitmate Goofball's carcass check around the country and hear what your party is saying about everyone else. You would be ashamed of Republicans if you did..........
wrote:

If you have any comments, reactions, rebuttles or thoughts on this column, feel free to send them to the email below,
If your email is intelligently written, they will be posted underneath this messege..
We at OnlineWorldofWrestling want to promote all points of view, and that includes YOURS.




© 2007, Black Pants, Inc. All other trademarks are property of their respective holders.

[ CHAT ROOM | FLASH | SEARCH | FORUMS | DOWNLOADS | TAPES | WRESTLINKS | GUESTBOOK | THANK YOU | CONTACT ]