Ron Artest not sorry? Fine by me.

THE network's magazine celebrates Ron Artest's 20 January 2007 return to The Palace by featuring the defensive specialist in its January 15th edition.

Apparently, we're told, as if we should be really, really concerned, Artest isn't sorry for attacking a Pistons' fan.

Apparently, Artest thinks that Big Ben Wallace and Dumbass John Green, the dude who threw the beer at him, should receive a greater share of the blame for inciting the brawl in Detroit than they have & than Ron has.

To this ... I say ... fine by me.

I'm not overly worried about Artest, apologies, & blame. Maybe our little NBA world & Ron himself would be better off if he went through the motions, as one blogger suggests, & fesses up & apologizes.

(Closure, huh? A well-oiled PR machine. So sincere, so genuine. What noisy cats are we to actually & actively desire - need! - that simulation of regret.)

I'm avoiding the illusion that Artest needs to "earn" my respect in order to overcome the sordid Palace affair. As if my respect is worth giving; as if he needs, wants, or can use it.

What does concern me is that we don't call out Ron-Ron, as well as a few of his predictable defenders (Sir Charles, I'm looking at you), for justifying Artest's attack on the fan who he thought had thrown a beer at him.

You're nuts to think you wouldn't retaliate if somebody threw a cup of beer in your face. He shouldn't have to tell you that that's an invite to a fight if ever there was one.

I wish we could spend some time with this explanation, deconstructing it. Artest, et al. essentially claim that the beer-toss was an attack & an invitation for retaliation, even though Artest's safety was only put at risk once he entered the stands & even though the Tru Warrior had no clue who threw the beer at him.

This explanation also only works for those of us for whom the paternal dictum of "hit 'em back" makes sense. Artest claims that for him it does.

Artest says fans, media, everyone would all get it if they could experience what it's like to live in the ghetto "for, like, four years."

I haven't lived in the ghetto & can't evaluate Artest's logic. This explanation does, though, need some fleshing out. Is Artest claiming that he was conditioned to the ghetto to respond to all personal threats & insults with violence? Is he claiming that he reacts in any situation, regardless of place, as if he's in the ghetto?

But I do want to resist the insistance that everyone would react just as Artest reacted. Spill a beer on me at an NBA game, a party, or on the street & I'm likely to ignore you & continue doing my thing. Why? (1) Because fighting you makes no sense; I'm small, have never fought, &, thus, am not likely to win; (2) I don't want to escalate your dumb shit into something dumber & shittier; (3) I don't believe that beating the crap out of someone (who poses no risk to my safety) actually proves a superiority worth having. Perhaps my logic breaks some unwritten man law. In the justification offered by Artest, et al. I sensed a simultaneous defense of some masculine rule, some need for masculine proof & respect.

So ...
I don't care if you're sorry.
Instead, the question that remains :
Was whatever you proved worth it, Mr. Artest?

Johnny Hatchett