Boycott Football!!!

I used to watch football (on television). I was never a passionate fan, by any stretch, but I followed it and could at least pretend to know enough stuff that if the conversation veered in that direction I wouldn’t say something so ridiculous that it would reveal the depth of my ignorance.

No more. And it has nothing to do with the fake issue of the national anthem (an event that wasn’t even shown on televised broadcasts unless it featured a famous singer), or a draft-dodging president ginning up outrage over a lack of patriotism. I gave it up even before Stan Kroenke jilted St. Louis and took the Rams back to Los Angeles. I started to see it as a thuggish, brutish “sport” that glorified violence and then feigned surprise when its actors carried that same violence off the field. (See: Hey! Are You Ready For Some Fuhball! Unnhhh! Me, not so much.)

I have even better reasons, now, to be thankful that I didn’t have a son to convince not to play the game. because nothing demonstrates cognitive dissonance better than football. A large majority of Americans (83% according to one poll) believe that football is dangerous to the participants, that it “certainly” or “probably” causes brain injuries. Would that number be even higher if more people knew about the study showing 110 of 111 former professional football players’ autopsies showed CTE? Three out of four people say that head injuries are a major problem for the sport.

Three out of four also identify as fans of football and almost half say it’s their favorite sport to watch. Parents encourage their sons to play, from a young age, a sport that risks their long-term health, both physical and mental, that encourages a culture of violence. A study out of Virginia and North Carolina showed that 19 boys, aged 7 & 8, had taken over 3000 hits to the head in practice and games. Players aged 9-12 had averaged 240 hits to the head per player, with more force than people might expect. Over 25,000 football players aged 8 to 19 are treated in emergency rooms for concussions each year. (The Week, Vol. XIII, #639, p. 20)

About 90% of retired NFL players are in pain daily. Almost half (44%) have either had or been recommended to have joint replacement surgery. The goal of football is for (almost universally large) players to run into each other, knock each down or out of the way, play after play, and day after day if you include practice. Pretty sure the human body is neither intended nor built to take that kind of abuse. Despite President Trump’s bemoaning how football is being softened and made less “manly” (my words, his implication), the risks of this sport make whatever pleasure might be available as a spectator clearly not worth it (to me).

While I admit that the vast majority of retired football players claim they are happy they played, despite their projected shortened and painful life spans, I would suggest that the decision is not quite as completely personal as you might expect. The costs to the medical system for the health care of these men is not borne solely by them, but by society at large. Their costs, like the costs for those who decline to wear helmets when riding motorcycles (or even bicycles, for that matter) are not limited to them.

So if you’re boycotting football, I’m happy to join you (even if no one notices — I haven’t watched a game in years), because anything that diminishes the football culture in this country is okay by me. Just understand, I have my own reasons, and patriotic outrage isn’t one of them.

Just for fun, from the University of Snapple, early football fields had both horizontal AND vertical stripes, making it resemble, wait for it, a gridiron.

Beware of They!

Although I suppose it would be easier (read, simpler) in many ways, we do not live in a black and white world.

Them! They! Certainly not US!

Originally written 9/21/2017, updated & edited today.

Do you ever wonder who “they” are?

I was perusing FaceBook, something I admittedly probably spend too much time on, and I stumbled across a post about them, which was to say not the poster, wanting to do something that seemed snowflakey. Snowflakes and triggers come in both red and blue, incidentally. Then I ran across another post about how they were hateful.

And I began, as I often do, to wonder, “Who is this they?” If you consider yourself a conservative, “they” is probably liberals. If you consider yourself a liberal, “they” is probably conservatives. If you’re a (true) libertarian, you get to alternate “theys” between both the liberals AND conservatives! Lucky you!

But I would ask you, before sharing, reposting, tweeting or retweeting, that meme or article, to ask yourself who that they is to whom you’re referring.

Because the fact of the matter is, unless you’re talking about a very specific (and generally small) group of people, there really is no “they.” Of course there are Nazis; of course there are anarchists (who, almost by definition, are a less than cohesive group); of course there are Kluckers; of course there are, well, you get the picture. And yes, there are true-believer Republicans and Democrats, and while frequently those who have been elected by their party will follow the party-line, it is often as much out of a desire to stay in office than any real commitment to a particular bill or even philosophy. Even those who do claim a philosophical affiliation with one party or the other (or some other) will often be loyal only to a point. Only the wonks actually know or follow the platform of their party, and even then selectively. (Note that the GOP didn’t even bother with a platform in 2020.)

But all generalizations, like all stereotypes, will seldom be accurate when describing any individual.

I’ve been called a liberal, a socialist, even a communist (that was a long time ago). I’ve previously expressed my scorn for labels, because labels are too simplistic. I lean left, no doubt, so in the eyes of a staunch conservative (including my own family), that makes me a liberal. Even if true, guess what? We don’t have meetings to decide what we believe, because there is no consensus.

My brothers lean right. But they don’t, at least as far as I know, meet up for lunch to define the weekly positions for a true-believer conservative. Or at least they didn’t invite me when you could still do lunch. Nor do any other conservatives, or liberals. Those terms are only marginally useful because there is no organized group. But if you want to rile people up, get them excited about fake issues (like removing statues of George Washington or Thomas Jefferson), feel free to talk about how they are doing whatever.