I find myself somewhat conflicted by the guilty verdict in the hate-crime trial of Dharun Ravi. For those of you unfamiliar with the case, the (largely undisputed) facts are as follows:
In September 2010, Ravi used a webcam to surreptitiously film his Rutgers University roommate, Tyler Clementi, having sex with another man. Subsequently, Ravi posted the videos on Twitter and encouraged people to watch his roommate "kissing a dude." Tyler found out about the Twitter posts and became, understandably, upset. Three days after the incident, Tyler committed suicide by jumping off the George Washington Bridge.
Now, cause and effect are not at issue here: Ravi was not charged with Tyler's death. While it is reasonable to assume that the video was an aggravating factor in whatever mental anguish Tyler felt, there is no legal case to be made that Ravi caused his roommate's death. Still, the guilty verdict in the trial raises some interesting questions:
Is Dharun Ravi a jerk? Yes.
Is what he did wrong? Yes.
Is what he did illegal? Yes--to an extent.
The jury correctly found Ravi guilty of such crimes as invasion of privacy and evidence tampering (for trying to delete the offending videos from his account). I am not convinced, though, that what Ravi did rises to the level of a "hate crime."
In fairness, I am certainly not familiar with all the facts of the case. Maybe Ravi constantly used anti-gay slurs around Clementi. Maybe some of the twit's tweets encourage people to taunt, tease, or torment Tyler. But none of that was made apparent in today's article about the verdict. Indeed, Ravi's use of the phrase "kissing a dude" hardly qualifies as hate speech. Now, of course, if Ravi used stronger language in other tweets, or if more direct and overt threats or verbal abuse was directed at Tyler because of the videos, then, yes, the verdict was correct--but I'm only going on what I've seen here.
A thought experiment: What if Ravi had filmed a heterosexual roommate having sex with a woman and posted those videos online for everyone to see? Certainly not an unreasonable scenario. In that case, we would probably attribute Ravi's actions to immaturity or titillation. The posting of the videos would not be done BECAUSE the man in the videos was heterosexual--the heterosexuality would have caused the sex, but not the publicizing thereof. One could argue--and I'm sure Ravi's lawyers did argue--much the same thing: that Ravi didn't post the videos because Tyler was gay, but rather because Tyler was having sex, and he, Ravi, thought it would be a hoot to post these videos online.
I am in no way defending Ravi's actions. But we need to tread very carefully when we criminalize behavior and even more when we criminalize thought. And even if we agree that crimes motivated by antipathy towards a group merit special punishment, I'm not sure this motivation has been proven in THIS case. If you are going to penalize--imprison--someone based on his underlying state of mind, then you had better be damn sure that state of mind exists.
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Friday, March 16, 2012
Holland-Slays Source
The Solipsist stands behind Rick Santorum! Which, given the semi-official definition of "Santorum" may not be the best place to be, but still. . . .
Last night, on "The Colbert Report," Stephen played a clip of a Rick Santorum appearance from a few weeks ago, where the former senator commented that, in the Netherlands, elderly people are made to wear bracelets indicating their readiness to be euthanized. He also stated that 10% of all deaths in the Netherlands are attributable to euthanasia.
Now, of course, the Netherlands is not to be trusted: First of all, it keeps pretending to be Holland. And how can you trust people who don't even know enough to build their country ABOVE the waterline. Still, the idea that doctors are running around wantonly killing off unproductive geezers--attractive as the idea sounds--seems somewhat unlikely. Indeed, the Santorum camp has not provided any documentation supporting the candidate's assertions about this matter--quite possibly because no such documentation exists. Until now, that is!
See, I figure, if pressed on the matter, Santorum could always say he "read it someplace." And since the media elite will probably go all "verifiable" on his ass, Santorum will want to name an actual source where he could have read these outrageous statements about over-enthusiastic Dutch mercy-killers. Well, Rick, look no further.
(Ahem.)
In the Netherlands, people must wear bracelets indicating their eligibility for euthanasia. Furthermore, on average, 10% of all Dutch deaths can be attributed to euthanasia.
There you go, Senator. Feel free to point any and all reporters to the Solipsist: That's http://solipsisticmusings.blogspot.com. Send your supporters my way, too: I'm sure they'd LOVE to hear what I have to say.
Don't worry, Rick. The Solipsist has got your back. You're welcome!
Last night, on "The Colbert Report," Stephen played a clip of a Rick Santorum appearance from a few weeks ago, where the former senator commented that, in the Netherlands, elderly people are made to wear bracelets indicating their readiness to be euthanized. He also stated that 10% of all deaths in the Netherlands are attributable to euthanasia.
Now, of course, the Netherlands is not to be trusted: First of all, it keeps pretending to be Holland. And how can you trust people who don't even know enough to build their country ABOVE the waterline. Still, the idea that doctors are running around wantonly killing off unproductive geezers--attractive as the idea sounds--seems somewhat unlikely. Indeed, the Santorum camp has not provided any documentation supporting the candidate's assertions about this matter--quite possibly because no such documentation exists. Until now, that is!
See, I figure, if pressed on the matter, Santorum could always say he "read it someplace." And since the media elite will probably go all "verifiable" on his ass, Santorum will want to name an actual source where he could have read these outrageous statements about over-enthusiastic Dutch mercy-killers. Well, Rick, look no further.
(Ahem.)
In the Netherlands, people must wear bracelets indicating their eligibility for euthanasia. Furthermore, on average, 10% of all Dutch deaths can be attributed to euthanasia.
There you go, Senator. Feel free to point any and all reporters to the Solipsist: That's http://solipsisticmusings.blogspot.com. Send your supporters my way, too: I'm sure they'd LOVE to hear what I have to say.
Don't worry, Rick. The Solipsist has got your back. You're welcome!
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Can't Beat That with a Stick--'Cause "That" Is a Woman, and It's Against the Law!
Congressional Republicans are incensed that Senate Democrats have brought up the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act. They claim the Democratic majority wants to make the GOP look bad by forcing them to vote on the issue. I don't get it. Why would supporting this broadly popular legislation to protect women from violence make Republicans look bad?
Oh.
Seriously?
Yes, seriously, folks! The party that brought you mandatory trans-vaginal ultrasounds and now, in Arizona, legislation allowing employers to fire women who use birth control pills--that party now has a problem with reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. Which, of course, is all a Democratic plan to make them look bad. No doubt the Dems also tricked Rush Limbaugh into slandering Sandra Fluke.
In fairness, Republicans are most emphatically NOT in favor of domestic violence. International violence, sure, but that's another story. No, the Republicans simply object to some of the law's proposed new requirements:
No, no, no. . . .They really just have problems with the immigration provisions, as well as questions about the way some of the grant money is being spent. Unfortunately for them, if these arguably legitimate concerns lead conservatives to vote against the measure, Democrats will likely wield these votes as ammunition in their campaign to paint Republicans as a party actively hostile to women's rights. Sucks for them, but then again, the GOP wouldn't have this problem if it hadn't done such a good job at painting itself as actively hostile to women's rights.
As for GOP complaints about Democrats willfilly misrepresenting Republican positions, well, guess what, folks? That's called politics. When you feel bad about being misrepresented as misogynstic neanderthals, just remember two words: Death panels.
******************************************
Sidenote: Rabid anti-feminist and Viagra antidote Phyllis Schlafly describes the Violent Against Women Act as "legislation that promotes 'divorce, breakup of marriage and hatred of men.'” Speaking as a man--indeed, speaking for all men (as I do)--I can assure Schlafly that VAWA does not make me feel hated. Indeed, I would hazard that the only men who feel hated because of this legislation are those who are inclined to commit violence against women. Which I would think is kind of the point, no?
Oh.
Seriously?
Yes, seriously, folks! The party that brought you mandatory trans-vaginal ultrasounds and now, in Arizona, legislation allowing employers to fire women who use birth control pills--that party now has a problem with reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. Which, of course, is all a Democratic plan to make them look bad. No doubt the Dems also tricked Rush Limbaugh into slandering Sandra Fluke.
In fairness, Republicans are most emphatically NOT in favor of domestic violence. International violence, sure, but that's another story. No, the Republicans simply object to some of the law's proposed new requirements:
The legislation would continue existing grant programs to local law enforcement and battered women shelters, but would expand efforts to reach Indian tribes and rural areas. It would increase the availability of free legal assistance to victims of domestic violence, extend the definition of violence against women to include stalking, and provide training for civil and criminal court personnel to deal with families with a history of violence. It would also allow more battered illegal immigrants to claim temporary visas, and would include same-sex couples in programs for domestic violence.So, there: Republicans just oppose the idea of preventing violence against Native American and rural women.
No, no, no. . . .They really just have problems with the immigration provisions, as well as questions about the way some of the grant money is being spent. Unfortunately for them, if these arguably legitimate concerns lead conservatives to vote against the measure, Democrats will likely wield these votes as ammunition in their campaign to paint Republicans as a party actively hostile to women's rights. Sucks for them, but then again, the GOP wouldn't have this problem if it hadn't done such a good job at painting itself as actively hostile to women's rights.
As for GOP complaints about Democrats willfilly misrepresenting Republican positions, well, guess what, folks? That's called politics. When you feel bad about being misrepresented as misogynstic neanderthals, just remember two words: Death panels.
******************************************
Sidenote: Rabid anti-feminist and Viagra antidote Phyllis Schlafly describes the Violent Against Women Act as "legislation that promotes 'divorce, breakup of marriage and hatred of men.'” Speaking as a man--indeed, speaking for all men (as I do)--I can assure Schlafly that VAWA does not make me feel hated. Indeed, I would hazard that the only men who feel hated because of this legislation are those who are inclined to commit violence against women. Which I would think is kind of the point, no?
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
BLOG MA--LANGUAGE
Yesterday, a student asked if I knew who Bill Maher was. I explained that, despite my advanced age old and the fact that I live under a rock at the bottom of San Francisco Bay, I was, in fact, aware of the Maher's existence. (Sarcasm is wasted on some people.) Anyway, this student asked what I thought about the fact that Bill Maher had made all kinds of vulgar comments about Sarah Palin and not caught the same kind of heat that Rush Limbaugh has attracted since attacking Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke. I hadn't actually heard about Maher's comments--I later saw Jon Stewart's piece about the Fox News fueled contretemps--and I asked what he (Maher) had said. The student said that the news mentioned Maher calling Palin "the 'C' word." Then he asked me what "the 'C' word" was, which led to one of the more awkward moments in my teaching career. . . but that's not the point. I said that I still felt that what Rush did was worse, but our conversation got me thinking about the relative acceptability of different epithets.
First, is there a double standard at work here? That is, is it OK for Bill Maher to call Sarah Palin a cunt but not for Rush Limbaugh to call Sandra Fluke a slut? Partially this depends on your own sensibilities. Some would say both men are being offensive, some would just shrug. I'm all for free speech, so I certainly wouldn't censor either of them, but I would also not censor those who would condemn either man's choice of words. And, personally, I think Bill Maher could do better.
At the same time, Maher's choice of words doesn't especially bother me. This might have something to do with the fact that I generally dislike Sarah Palin, but that's not all there is to it. Substitute Sarah Palin for, say, Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton (not that Bill Maher would be likely to use such language in describing either of those women), and I still wouldn't be overly incensed.
Part of my relative comfort with Maher's language comes from the fact that Sarah Palin is a public figure who is more than capable of defending herself. She can command any media platform she likes, and she has cadres of lawyers, publicists, and political cronies who can come down hard on Bill Maher or anyone else who attacks her. Sandra Fluke has also made herself a public figure, and thus opened herself up to certain criticisms. But she has nothing like Palin's resources, and this adds to the perception that she is being bullied by someone much more powerful than she.
Overall, though, what makes Limbaugh's actions worse than Maher's in this instance is his choice of words. As offensive as words like "cunt" or "bitch" are, they have limited significance. Think about what message Maher conveyed by calling Palin a "cunt": Essentially, the translation of that statement is, "I think Sarah Palin is a bad person and I dislike her." "Bad person," of course, is a matter of personal opinion. Maher can point to things Palin has done or said that make her, in his estimation, "bad," but those same things might make her "good" to other people--other hopelessly benighted people, but what are you going to do?
When people call a woman "slut" or a "whore," though, they are not, literally, expressing their feelings towards another person; they are making assertions about that person's behavior: Specifically, they are saying that this woman has "inappropriate" amounts of sex (which, by the way, if you're having sex with Rush Limbaugh is ANY amount of sex) and/or has sex for money. In our society, these actions generally brand a woman as "bad." Now, we can argue whether this is a wrong-headed assumption, but the fact is that this is the standard societal attitude.
In other words, "bitch" or "cunt" (or "asshole" or "scumbag") can be "excused" as one person's opinion; "whore" and "prostitute" are words associated with behavior--and are frankly slanderous unless they can be backed up. Bill Maher is a raunchy comedian who says things that people often find offensive. Rush Limbaugh is a sleazy asshole. That, of course, is just my opinion.
First, is there a double standard at work here? That is, is it OK for Bill Maher to call Sarah Palin a cunt but not for Rush Limbaugh to call Sandra Fluke a slut? Partially this depends on your own sensibilities. Some would say both men are being offensive, some would just shrug. I'm all for free speech, so I certainly wouldn't censor either of them, but I would also not censor those who would condemn either man's choice of words. And, personally, I think Bill Maher could do better.
At the same time, Maher's choice of words doesn't especially bother me. This might have something to do with the fact that I generally dislike Sarah Palin, but that's not all there is to it. Substitute Sarah Palin for, say, Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton (not that Bill Maher would be likely to use such language in describing either of those women), and I still wouldn't be overly incensed.
Part of my relative comfort with Maher's language comes from the fact that Sarah Palin is a public figure who is more than capable of defending herself. She can command any media platform she likes, and she has cadres of lawyers, publicists, and political cronies who can come down hard on Bill Maher or anyone else who attacks her. Sandra Fluke has also made herself a public figure, and thus opened herself up to certain criticisms. But she has nothing like Palin's resources, and this adds to the perception that she is being bullied by someone much more powerful than she.
Overall, though, what makes Limbaugh's actions worse than Maher's in this instance is his choice of words. As offensive as words like "cunt" or "bitch" are, they have limited significance. Think about what message Maher conveyed by calling Palin a "cunt": Essentially, the translation of that statement is, "I think Sarah Palin is a bad person and I dislike her." "Bad person," of course, is a matter of personal opinion. Maher can point to things Palin has done or said that make her, in his estimation, "bad," but those same things might make her "good" to other people--other hopelessly benighted people, but what are you going to do?
When people call a woman "slut" or a "whore," though, they are not, literally, expressing their feelings towards another person; they are making assertions about that person's behavior: Specifically, they are saying that this woman has "inappropriate" amounts of sex (which, by the way, if you're having sex with Rush Limbaugh is ANY amount of sex) and/or has sex for money. In our society, these actions generally brand a woman as "bad." Now, we can argue whether this is a wrong-headed assumption, but the fact is that this is the standard societal attitude.
In other words, "bitch" or "cunt" (or "asshole" or "scumbag") can be "excused" as one person's opinion; "whore" and "prostitute" are words associated with behavior--and are frankly slanderous unless they can be backed up. Bill Maher is a raunchy comedian who says things that people often find offensive. Rush Limbaugh is a sleazy asshole. That, of course, is just my opinion.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
People Are Idiots
Some tidbits from the latest Times/CBS opinion poll:
With the vast resources at his command, of course, the President could TRY to do something to lower gas prices. He could always try to nationalize the oil companies. It didn't work out too well for Harry Truman and the steel industry, but that was sixty years ago--could be worth another shot. Of course, the word "nationalization" conjures images of other countries like the Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela. Still, the people have spoken! The President must DO SOMETHING!
The sad thing is, many good, red-blooded Americans--who no doubt screamed "Socialism!" when "Comrade Obama" passed healthcare reform--would probably be happy about any decrease in gas prices caused by such nationalization. Because trying to provide health insurance to millions of the uninsured is godless communism; but saving a couple of bucks when I gas up my pick-up? God bless America!
**************************************************
By the way, this same poll also showed that, among Republican voters, Rick Santorum--the same Rick Santorum who is opposed to any kind of health mandate and particularly incensed about requiring coverage for contraception--holds a commanding lead over Mitt Romney (41% to 27%) among FEMALE voters. As Gail Collins might say, women just can't get over that whole dog on the roof thing!
"Over all, 54 percent of poll respondents believed that a president can do a lot to control gas prices, as opposed to 36 percent who believe they are beyond a president’s control. . . . 'I think just being the president of the United States of America, you would have some type of control over gas pricing,' said Jamie Haber, 39, an independent voter of Orlando."Obviously, when Republican presidential candidates express indignation and blame President Obama for high gas prices, they are engaging in base political gamesmanship. Whatever. More power to 'em. For the sake of Mr. Haber, though, I would like to point out that the president is not to blame for high gas prices and, in fact, gas prices ARE largely beyond a president's control. Republicans will caterwaul about the need to "Drill, Baby, drill." If pressed on the issue, however, they would have to acknowledge the fact that, even if the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and all of the Gulf of Mexico and, let's say, the entire state of Kentucky were opened to oil exploration tomorrow, it would have no immediate effect on gas prices. There is a LITTLE bit of a lag between the start of drilling operations and an increase in the supply of oil that would lead to reduced prices at the pump.
With the vast resources at his command, of course, the President could TRY to do something to lower gas prices. He could always try to nationalize the oil companies. It didn't work out too well for Harry Truman and the steel industry, but that was sixty years ago--could be worth another shot. Of course, the word "nationalization" conjures images of other countries like the Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela. Still, the people have spoken! The President must DO SOMETHING!
The sad thing is, many good, red-blooded Americans--who no doubt screamed "Socialism!" when "Comrade Obama" passed healthcare reform--would probably be happy about any decrease in gas prices caused by such nationalization. Because trying to provide health insurance to millions of the uninsured is godless communism; but saving a couple of bucks when I gas up my pick-up? God bless America!
**************************************************
By the way, this same poll also showed that, among Republican voters, Rick Santorum--the same Rick Santorum who is opposed to any kind of health mandate and particularly incensed about requiring coverage for contraception--holds a commanding lead over Mitt Romney (41% to 27%) among FEMALE voters. As Gail Collins might say, women just can't get over that whole dog on the roof thing!
Monday, March 12, 2012
Thursday Trendwatch--Monday Edition
If you don't want to contract PROSTATE CANCER (10)--and these days, who does? I mean, prostate cancer went out with Crocs and Tamagochi. Anyone who's anyone is coming down with bird flu these days. . . . Wait, what was I talking about? Oh, yeah: If you want to avoid prostate cancer, you may want to consider circumcision. Scientists are unsure about the exact mechanism, but a recent study found that men who have prostate cancer are less likely to be circumcised. Less likely than what was not made clear.
Speaking of prostate cancer--and, for that matter, circumcision--LARRY KING (9) is reportedly launching his very own show on internet TV.
With an internet show, King can now add another media outlet to a list of previous platforms that includes television, radio, print media, Vaudeville music hall, and the Lascaux cave paintings.
Larry King is very old, is what I'm saying.
Number 8 on the Trendwatch is AT&T, but when I clicked on the link, I was directed to a page that said, "Did you mean AT&T?" Well, I don't know, Yahoo!! It's your "Trending Now" list!
(DIGRESSION: That first exclamation point is part of the Yahoo! name--like that--and should not be interpreted to mean that I considered the previous statement worthy of two exclamation points. I mean, it's upsetting, but not that upsetting!! EOD)
Maybe I'll have better luck with CRYSTAL CATHEDRAL (7). I have no idea what the Crystal Cathedral is, but yesterday its senior pastor, Sheila Schuller Coleman (quite a tongue twister, by the way), announced that she was leaving the Cathedral to start her own church. Somehow, I doubt this announcement is up there with Martin Luther nailing his 95 theses to the church door, but who knows? Maybe five-hundred years from now Schuller-Colemanism will have supplanted Islam as the world's most misunderstood religion.
HALLE BERRY (6) is engaged--to a Frenchman! Seriously, there's something seriously wrong when Halle Berry can't get a date in America. Well, since I forced you all to look at Larry King, here:
Speaking of prostate cancer--and, for that matter, circumcision--LARRY KING (9) is reportedly launching his very own show on internet TV.
Larry King is very old, is what I'm saying.
Number 8 on the Trendwatch is AT&T, but when I clicked on the link, I was directed to a page that said, "Did you mean AT&T?" Well, I don't know, Yahoo!! It's your "Trending Now" list!
(DIGRESSION: That first exclamation point is part of the Yahoo! name--like that--and should not be interpreted to mean that I considered the previous statement worthy of two exclamation points. I mean, it's upsetting, but not that upsetting!! EOD)
Maybe I'll have better luck with CRYSTAL CATHEDRAL (7). I have no idea what the Crystal Cathedral is, but yesterday its senior pastor, Sheila Schuller Coleman (quite a tongue twister, by the way), announced that she was leaving the Cathedral to start her own church. Somehow, I doubt this announcement is up there with Martin Luther nailing his 95 theses to the church door, but who knows? Maybe five-hundred years from now Schuller-Colemanism will have supplanted Islam as the world's most misunderstood religion.
HALLE BERRY (6) is engaged--to a Frenchman! Seriously, there's something seriously wrong when Halle Berry can't get a date in America. Well, since I forced you all to look at Larry King, here:
SARAH PALIN (5) is reportedly upset about the HBO movie "Game Change," about the 2008 presidential campaign, which starred Julianne Moore as Palin. I have not seen the movie; however, if I were Palin, I wouldn't complain too much: No disrespect to Tina Fey, but going from being portrayed by her to being portrayed by Julianna Moore has got to be considered a step up. It's like when the rights to my life story were transferred from Pauly Shore to George Clooney.
It could happen.
To wrap up the Trendwatch, TIGER WOODS (4) has a mid-Achilles sprain, which will provide a suitable rationale for his next round of general mediocrity. No words will be wasted on RUSH LIMBAUGH (3). The Bay Area can look forward to a BART EXTENSION (2). From now on, the area's public transportation network will be known as HOBART--nobody knows why. And not to be outdone--or out-extended--by BART, 49ers' quarterback, ALEX SMITH (1) is reportedly close to a contract extension.
And speaking of Alex Smith's extension, no word on whether Smith has a prostate-cancer-risk-lowering circumcision or not.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Worst Day Ever
Daylight Savings Time sucks.
That is all.
*******************************************
Well, OK, that's not ALL. I also wanted to comment on the ongoing outrage about NFL "bounties."
In case you haven't heard, controversy erupted a couple of weeks ago when it was revealed that Gregg Williams, the former defensive coordinatpr of the New Orleans Saints, encouraged a bounty system, whereby players would receive financial rewards--sometimes running into the thousands of dollars--if they tackled opposing players so hard that these folks had to leave the game. The outrage arises from the fact that (A) players were being encouraged to cause injuries and (B) this behavior was encouraged by the team's management.
Frankly, there has always been something of a "Shocked! Shocked!" quality to this whole thing. Yes, it's somewhat distasteful to think that players involved in what is, after all, a game, are not simply playing to win but to physically injure their competition. But let's face it: Football is an inherently violent game. When a defensive player tackles a quarterback or any other offensive player, he is trying to make sure that the offensive player goes down. On every play, therefore, the nature of the game calls for violent, potentially bone-shattering or concussion-inducing collisions--and if players want to stay in the NFL, they know that they must make full contact at all times. In other words, does a bounty system--which most players have admitted exist in every NFL locker room--truly lead to more ferocious contact?
A playoff game between the Saints and the Vikings, wherein Viking quarterback Brett Favre was repeatedly pummeled, has become Exhibit A in the bounty controversy. But had no such system existed, do people think the Saints defenders would have just gently lowered Favre to the Superdome turf? Indeed, the very fact that the controversy only erupted when people found out about the existence of the bounties proves how much a standard part of the game such violence is.
Rules should--and do--exist to protect players from exceptionally violent contact, rules outlawing blows to the head and certain low tackles. Outlawing "bounties" is somewhat pointless. Even if management forswears such behavior, the players themselves will continue the practice informally. It no more undermines the integrity of the game than high-fives, and it is arguable less offensive than endzone dances.
That is all.
*******************************************
Well, OK, that's not ALL. I also wanted to comment on the ongoing outrage about NFL "bounties."
In case you haven't heard, controversy erupted a couple of weeks ago when it was revealed that Gregg Williams, the former defensive coordinatpr of the New Orleans Saints, encouraged a bounty system, whereby players would receive financial rewards--sometimes running into the thousands of dollars--if they tackled opposing players so hard that these folks had to leave the game. The outrage arises from the fact that (A) players were being encouraged to cause injuries and (B) this behavior was encouraged by the team's management.
Frankly, there has always been something of a "Shocked! Shocked!" quality to this whole thing. Yes, it's somewhat distasteful to think that players involved in what is, after all, a game, are not simply playing to win but to physically injure their competition. But let's face it: Football is an inherently violent game. When a defensive player tackles a quarterback or any other offensive player, he is trying to make sure that the offensive player goes down. On every play, therefore, the nature of the game calls for violent, potentially bone-shattering or concussion-inducing collisions--and if players want to stay in the NFL, they know that they must make full contact at all times. In other words, does a bounty system--which most players have admitted exist in every NFL locker room--truly lead to more ferocious contact?
A playoff game between the Saints and the Vikings, wherein Viking quarterback Brett Favre was repeatedly pummeled, has become Exhibit A in the bounty controversy. But had no such system existed, do people think the Saints defenders would have just gently lowered Favre to the Superdome turf? Indeed, the very fact that the controversy only erupted when people found out about the existence of the bounties proves how much a standard part of the game such violence is.
Rules should--and do--exist to protect players from exceptionally violent contact, rules outlawing blows to the head and certain low tackles. Outlawing "bounties" is somewhat pointless. Even if management forswears such behavior, the players themselves will continue the practice informally. It no more undermines the integrity of the game than high-fives, and it is arguable less offensive than endzone dances.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)