To say that the NFL has handled the Ray Rice spousal abuse situation poorly is akin to suggesting that Ebola is only slightly terminal if not treated properly.
Quite simply put, it has been atrocious. It has resulted in one bad decision after another as the league's head office staggers from one PR disaster to the next. And to top it off they now have to deal with the Adrian Peterson child abuse case.
Now I don't know if you have seen the pictures of this "spanking" or not, I have, and I honestly wish I hadn't. This wasn't "discipline", this was flat out, sadistic abuse. Mr. Peterson has not denied his involvement, nor denied the method by which he savagely beat his son (one of five from five different women I believe), but the excuse offered was "i got beat like that when I was growing up and I turned out fine." Well actually Mr. Peterson, no, no you didn't turn out fine. You turned out to be a fully grown adult that thinks it is perfectly normal, indeed just a regular part of growing up, to use a tree branch to beat your cowering, screaming son, bloody. You savagely beat him with a tree branch all over his body, including his genitals, because he swore at his sibling. Boy I bet he learned his lesson, huh?
His employer, the Minnesota Vikings, initially deactivated him from playing in the team's first home game this past weekend, ostensibly because of his off-field behavior/legal troubles, but more practically because he was in jail in Texas answering a warrant for the afore-mentioned child abuse. He then posted bail, and the team said he was reactivated for this upcoming weekend's game. Except that now he isn't because it turns out that this gem of a father has beaten at least another one of his children bloody. And there are pictures of that one too.
The NFL is now in an utter disarray as they try and figure this all out. They initially suspended Ray Rice for two games for knocking his fiance out cold, and dragging her unconscious body out of an elevator, then, when the videotape of the attack was made public suspended him indefinitely and his team fired him. Think about that for a second. He had admitted that he had knocked her out cold and dragged her limp, temporarily stunned body out of an elevator, but it wasn't until visual evidence of that attack was made public did either his team, or the league, think they might not want him around anymore.
With the Adrian Peterson case, photographic evidence of the results of his sadistic abuse was enough for one weeks' suspension, but he wasn't indefinitely suspended from team activities until photographic evidence of a second, separate beating of a different child came to light.
So, according to the NFL, if you knock your woman out, but there's no video you get a two week suspension, and if you beat one child bloody you only get a one week time-out. Perfect, so the moral is don't beat your woman senseless if it might be caught on video, and only beat one child to blood, because two bloodied children is just wrong....
My head hurts...
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
The National Felons League...Part I
As things go rapidly from bad to worse for the NFL (or, perhaps more accurately the National Felons League) as teams find out that a surprising number of their violent and aggressive players are just as violent and aggressive off the field as on, it strikes me as somewhat peculiar that the general public seems outraged by these events.
Let me explain; it's not just that the game they play itself is based on aggressive possession of someone else's territory, or that it is by design a male-dominated activity whereby women are solely seen as jiggling eye-candy on the sidelines at the games, but these multi-million dollar thugs have always been this abusive, and they have almost never had to face responsibility for their actions.
It starts out in high school where, in some parts of the country, 'Friday Night Lights' isn't just a sporting event, but a religious experience. The successful boys on the team get preferential treatment at the schools, and blind-eyes are turned by Johnny Law when they "act out" or engage in "typical boys just being boys" pranks like raping unconscious girls at under-age drinking parties.
They behave in a criminal manner, but, for the most part, it is swept under the carpet and they get back to the business of being star high-school athletes.
End result - no culpability for their actions.
Then they go to college. Here, where the booze is at least legal, the "boys will be boys" pranks tend to escalate to more grown-up crimes like, assault, DUI, aggravated rape so on and so on. These too are swept under the rug, as are the failing grades which get excused, or changed, or in some cases, have someone else take the exams for you, so that they can get back to the business of being star college athletes.
End result - no culpability for their actions.
Then they go to the NFL. The game is even faster, even more brutal, but the rewards are astronomically higher. This is being done in an arena where hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake, and where franchises are worth billions. Here the crimes move to the highest level, assault with deadly weapons, vehicular manslaughter, obstructing justice, spousal abuse, child abuse, murder, and murder-for-hire.
End result - the general public is outraged that these players would behave this way, because it's not as though they've played to a different set of rules than the rest of us since the first time their athletic prowess was discovered.
Oh wait....
Never mind...
Let me explain; it's not just that the game they play itself is based on aggressive possession of someone else's territory, or that it is by design a male-dominated activity whereby women are solely seen as jiggling eye-candy on the sidelines at the games, but these multi-million dollar thugs have always been this abusive, and they have almost never had to face responsibility for their actions.
It starts out in high school where, in some parts of the country, 'Friday Night Lights' isn't just a sporting event, but a religious experience. The successful boys on the team get preferential treatment at the schools, and blind-eyes are turned by Johnny Law when they "act out" or engage in "typical boys just being boys" pranks like raping unconscious girls at under-age drinking parties.
They behave in a criminal manner, but, for the most part, it is swept under the carpet and they get back to the business of being star high-school athletes.
End result - no culpability for their actions.
Then they go to college. Here, where the booze is at least legal, the "boys will be boys" pranks tend to escalate to more grown-up crimes like, assault, DUI, aggravated rape so on and so on. These too are swept under the rug, as are the failing grades which get excused, or changed, or in some cases, have someone else take the exams for you, so that they can get back to the business of being star college athletes.
End result - no culpability for their actions.
Then they go to the NFL. The game is even faster, even more brutal, but the rewards are astronomically higher. This is being done in an arena where hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake, and where franchises are worth billions. Here the crimes move to the highest level, assault with deadly weapons, vehicular manslaughter, obstructing justice, spousal abuse, child abuse, murder, and murder-for-hire.
End result - the general public is outraged that these players would behave this way, because it's not as though they've played to a different set of rules than the rest of us since the first time their athletic prowess was discovered.
Oh wait....
Never mind...
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
When celebrity nipples are more important than war crimes..
Okay, some thoughts about the leaking of various and sundry celebrity women's nekkid pics. Can we get a little perspective here? Yes, this was gross violation of their privacy, but this talk about how this is just a continuation of the overall objectification of women, and how this continues to shame them, is, in my humble opinion, massively overblown.
These women all agreed to have these pictures taken, no-one forced them, and men, since the beginning of time, have done all they can to look at women naked. We're hard-wired that way. Oh, and really, 'objectifying'? Seeing Kate Upton or Rhianna starkers is different from how they present themselves in their day jobs how exactly?
Yes, again, these were private photographs, never meant to be seen by the public at large, but in the bigger picture, when we look at muslim radicals committing atrocities on a daily, if not hourly basis, in Iraq, and Russia and Ukraine are on the verge of a war that could trigger yet another global conflict, and the polar ice caps continue to melt; we're really supposed to get all bent out of shape because Jennifer Lawrence posed nude for her boyfriend once, and some sneaky git stole the pics from the cloud and posted them on the web?
I think not.
These women all agreed to have these pictures taken, no-one forced them, and men, since the beginning of time, have done all they can to look at women naked. We're hard-wired that way. Oh, and really, 'objectifying'? Seeing Kate Upton or Rhianna starkers is different from how they present themselves in their day jobs how exactly?
Yes, again, these were private photographs, never meant to be seen by the public at large, but in the bigger picture, when we look at muslim radicals committing atrocities on a daily, if not hourly basis, in Iraq, and Russia and Ukraine are on the verge of a war that could trigger yet another global conflict, and the polar ice caps continue to melt; we're really supposed to get all bent out of shape because Jennifer Lawrence posed nude for her boyfriend once, and some sneaky git stole the pics from the cloud and posted them on the web?
I think not.
Monday, May 5, 2014
Sorry folks, but we are screwed.
Recently Chris Hayes wrote an article for The Nation magazine that set my head spinning. In it he basically laid out the difficulty that we face in getting the Fossil Fuel industry to do the right thing, and help save the planet.
In short it has been calculated that the maximum amount of carbon that can be added to the atmosphere and not increase the global temperature by more than 2 degrees (we've already raised it by 0.8 degrees) without major, catastrophic, global changes to the planet is 565 gigatons. That's it. No more. The problem? The total amount of proven reserves of carbon that is readily extractable using today's technology is 2795 gigatons, fives times as much as the maximum "safe" amount. The value of that carbon? Roughly $20 trillion. So, in order to save the planet, we have to find a way to persuade the Fossil Fuel Industry that the assets that they thought they could use, the assets that some are keeping on their books today even though it is still in the ground, well sorry, but you can't have them. Kiss that $20 trillion goodbye, it has to stay in the earth.
Good luck with that.
Above and beyond the fact that the Fossil Fuel Industry would simply tell us to go fuck ourselves as they caught their breath between bouts of raucous laughter, is that there is a knock-on effect to the damage that their carbon pollution in the atmosphere has caused. Namely, that global warming is opening up more areas to drill. Ten or twenty years ago the idea of drilling for oil in the Arctic, or off the coast of Greenland was inconceivable because it was hellaciously expensive. Now, thanks to the disappearing ice, not only is it economically feasible, they're already doing it.
In the most recent episode of 'Years of Living Dangerously', a series of documentaries on the Showtime network highlighting the impacts and effects of Global Climate Change, a correspondent (Lesley Stahl) went to Greenland to see the effects of glacial melting firsthand. I'm pretty sure we've all seen similar videos as massive chunks of ice, some the size of Manhattan, fall into the sea, and the massive lakes that now form on top of the ice drain into the depths of the glaciers further accelerating the calving process. What this has meant is that vast areas that were previously off-limits are now viable for oil exploration, and indeed Greenland has granted hundreds of permits for exploration to begin. But what made this segment truly eye-opening was the conversation with the Prime Minister of Greenland, Aleqa Hammond. In the interview Ms. Stahl put forth the suggestion that maybe it wasn't such a good idea to allow the Fossil Fuel industry to explore for oil in Greenland as it could be disastrous for the rest of the planet. The Prime Minister looked at Ms. Stahl as though she had just silently farted and the initial waves of that awful scent had only just begun to invade her olfactory system. And to be honest, why wouldn't she?
As concerned members of the rich capitalist world stand around and point and shake their heads at the devastation their addiction to oil has caused as the Greenland glaciers crash into the sea at an ever-increasing rate, the folks that actually live there are rubbing their hands with glee. Billions of barrels of oil have suddenly become more viable to capture and the prospect of finally sharing in the global wealth the Fossil Fuel Industry creates finally appears to becoming a reality. Who wants to be the one to tell them that they can't participate? Who wants to be the one that says, 'No, for the benefit of the planet we can't allow you to become as rich as we are'? Or, more to the point, if we are to persuade them not to allow drilling, whom exactly will compensate them for 'doing the right thing'? The USA? China? The UN?
So, here we are. In order to stop the temperature of the planet from reaching the point that the lifestyle we have all become accustomed to simply ceasing to exist, all we have to do is persuade the people that are primarily responsible for the increase in the first place, not to drill anymore. Not only that, but they have to leave their reserves in the ground. And give up a metric shit-tonne of money. This would be akin to putting an alcoholic in the middle of a distillery and telling them that not only can't they take a sip from the bottle right in front of them, but they can't have any of the booze in the millions of cases stacked all around them in the distillery's warehouse. Oh, and some of the poorest folks on the planet must be told that they cannot join the party the rest of the modern world has been having for nigh on a hundred years, because the partiers have just suddenly figured out that it is going to kill us all.
The only thing the Fossil Fuel Industry values more than the size of their oil reserves is the politicians in their hip-pockets, and with the prospect of cheap oil money about to flood into Greenland, whom exactly is there to tell either group that the carbon party is over? I can't think of anyone that would stand a snowballs chance in hell.
And that is why I think we are all well and truly screwed.
In short it has been calculated that the maximum amount of carbon that can be added to the atmosphere and not increase the global temperature by more than 2 degrees (we've already raised it by 0.8 degrees) without major, catastrophic, global changes to the planet is 565 gigatons. That's it. No more. The problem? The total amount of proven reserves of carbon that is readily extractable using today's technology is 2795 gigatons, fives times as much as the maximum "safe" amount. The value of that carbon? Roughly $20 trillion. So, in order to save the planet, we have to find a way to persuade the Fossil Fuel Industry that the assets that they thought they could use, the assets that some are keeping on their books today even though it is still in the ground, well sorry, but you can't have them. Kiss that $20 trillion goodbye, it has to stay in the earth.
Good luck with that.
Above and beyond the fact that the Fossil Fuel Industry would simply tell us to go fuck ourselves as they caught their breath between bouts of raucous laughter, is that there is a knock-on effect to the damage that their carbon pollution in the atmosphere has caused. Namely, that global warming is opening up more areas to drill. Ten or twenty years ago the idea of drilling for oil in the Arctic, or off the coast of Greenland was inconceivable because it was hellaciously expensive. Now, thanks to the disappearing ice, not only is it economically feasible, they're already doing it.
In the most recent episode of 'Years of Living Dangerously', a series of documentaries on the Showtime network highlighting the impacts and effects of Global Climate Change, a correspondent (Lesley Stahl) went to Greenland to see the effects of glacial melting firsthand. I'm pretty sure we've all seen similar videos as massive chunks of ice, some the size of Manhattan, fall into the sea, and the massive lakes that now form on top of the ice drain into the depths of the glaciers further accelerating the calving process. What this has meant is that vast areas that were previously off-limits are now viable for oil exploration, and indeed Greenland has granted hundreds of permits for exploration to begin. But what made this segment truly eye-opening was the conversation with the Prime Minister of Greenland, Aleqa Hammond. In the interview Ms. Stahl put forth the suggestion that maybe it wasn't such a good idea to allow the Fossil Fuel industry to explore for oil in Greenland as it could be disastrous for the rest of the planet. The Prime Minister looked at Ms. Stahl as though she had just silently farted and the initial waves of that awful scent had only just begun to invade her olfactory system. And to be honest, why wouldn't she?
As concerned members of the rich capitalist world stand around and point and shake their heads at the devastation their addiction to oil has caused as the Greenland glaciers crash into the sea at an ever-increasing rate, the folks that actually live there are rubbing their hands with glee. Billions of barrels of oil have suddenly become more viable to capture and the prospect of finally sharing in the global wealth the Fossil Fuel Industry creates finally appears to becoming a reality. Who wants to be the one to tell them that they can't participate? Who wants to be the one that says, 'No, for the benefit of the planet we can't allow you to become as rich as we are'? Or, more to the point, if we are to persuade them not to allow drilling, whom exactly will compensate them for 'doing the right thing'? The USA? China? The UN?
So, here we are. In order to stop the temperature of the planet from reaching the point that the lifestyle we have all become accustomed to simply ceasing to exist, all we have to do is persuade the people that are primarily responsible for the increase in the first place, not to drill anymore. Not only that, but they have to leave their reserves in the ground. And give up a metric shit-tonne of money. This would be akin to putting an alcoholic in the middle of a distillery and telling them that not only can't they take a sip from the bottle right in front of them, but they can't have any of the booze in the millions of cases stacked all around them in the distillery's warehouse. Oh, and some of the poorest folks on the planet must be told that they cannot join the party the rest of the modern world has been having for nigh on a hundred years, because the partiers have just suddenly figured out that it is going to kill us all.
The only thing the Fossil Fuel Industry values more than the size of their oil reserves is the politicians in their hip-pockets, and with the prospect of cheap oil money about to flood into Greenland, whom exactly is there to tell either group that the carbon party is over? I can't think of anyone that would stand a snowballs chance in hell.
And that is why I think we are all well and truly screwed.
Friday, May 2, 2014
In defense of Jeremy Clarkson....sort of...
One of the presenters of the highly-rated BBC show 'Top Gear' has reportedly been found to have mumbled the word 'nigger' in some out takes of an episode several years ago when reciting the children's rhyme 'Eenie, meenie, miney, moe..'...
He has recorded what appears to be a genuine and sincere apology, which has quite predictably, not placated his critics...
....the fact that he supposedly mumbled it twice, before completely changing it on the third take seems to suggest he is NOT a racist, that he WAS aware that that particular word is now verbotten, and that he had tried to make sure that neither of those takes made it to air...
Of course if he had wanted to avoid the controversy entirely he could have simply just not mumbled that word at all, and used something else...
On this occasion, and because like it or not the word 'nigger' is in the original rhyme - for fucks sake I grew up saying it along with millions of other small British children - I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt...
But his earlier 'slope' remark that also generated more than a little justifiable outrage, was completely out of order. Top Gear producers have subsequently admitted that they KNEW that 'slope' was a racist term, but that they were using it in a "light-hearted" manner...Ah, so that makes it alright you see?
Not so much.
To sum up, Clarkson is a deliberately confrontational, self-important, obnoxious, knuckle-dragging, 20th century throwback conservative...but i don't believe he is a racist. I think he is simply a Grade-A moron.
And I don't think he should be punished for that.
He has recorded what appears to be a genuine and sincere apology, which has quite predictably, not placated his critics...
....the fact that he supposedly mumbled it twice, before completely changing it on the third take seems to suggest he is NOT a racist, that he WAS aware that that particular word is now verbotten, and that he had tried to make sure that neither of those takes made it to air...
Of course if he had wanted to avoid the controversy entirely he could have simply just not mumbled that word at all, and used something else...
On this occasion, and because like it or not the word 'nigger' is in the original rhyme - for fucks sake I grew up saying it along with millions of other small British children - I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt...
But his earlier 'slope' remark that also generated more than a little justifiable outrage, was completely out of order. Top Gear producers have subsequently admitted that they KNEW that 'slope' was a racist term, but that they were using it in a "light-hearted" manner...Ah, so that makes it alright you see?
Not so much.
To sum up, Clarkson is a deliberately confrontational, self-important, obnoxious, knuckle-dragging, 20th century throwback conservative...but i don't believe he is a racist. I think he is simply a Grade-A moron.
And I don't think he should be punished for that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)