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.

Star Wars -- Celebrity Reality Edition

Meryl Streep had the stage at the Golden Globes and chose to use it to criticize PEOTUS DJ Trump, causing outrage in the Trumpet Section. You know what? I don’t care. I don’t care that she spoke out (she has that right under the First Amendment) and I don’t care that people are angry with her and speaking out against her (they have that right under the First Amendment). None of that will have any influence on whether or not I go to see a film. I can’t actually remember what the last film I saw from this fine actress. (Her expression of opinion makes her outspoken, but neither over- nor underrated.)

During Ms. Streep’s speech it appears that Mel Gibson sat there stone-faced (kind of like when he's acting). You know what? I don’t care. His opinion of the president-elect and his critics and supporters make zero difference to me. Should he ever make another movie I want to see, I’ll possibly overlook his drunken anti-Semitic rants and go see it (although that’s a higher bar because it was a behavior, not an expression of an opinion).

Any number of celebrities have declined the opportunity to perform at Mr. Trump’s inauguration. You know what? I don’t care. Their opinion of the PEOTUS has no impact on me. They didn’t influence my vote in November and they won’t influence how I evaluate the man's actions as President of the United States. And if they influence yours, one way or the other, you might want to start thinking for yourself. 

Country singer Toby Keith is going to perform at the inauguration. You know what? Of course you do, by now. I don't care. The decision is his to make and will have no influence on whether or not I choose to attend a concert, buy a song or album, or eat mediocre and overpriced food served by scantily clad waitresses (#familyvalues!) in his Las Vegas restaurant.

Some celebrities (on both sides) are intelligent people, and we should always try to listen to intelligent people before making up our own minds. But, all things being equal (and I concede that they are not always, and that some celebrities actually do have experience in the areas where they opine) their opinion, no matter how big their audience, has no more value than yours or mine. The size of an audience carries no more weight as to the value of an opinion than the decibels of the shouter. In other words, to paraphrase another celebrity, “They don’t impress me much.”

Steve Harvey is apparently going to consult with Dr. Ben Carson in his role as head of HUD, which has some people upset with him and others rushing to his defense (usually depending on whether they are celebrating or bemoaning the election results). I don’t care. Steve Harvey seems to be a bright guy and certainly can be no more ignorant about the secretary job than Dr. Carson (also a bright, if bizarre, guy, but misplaced in this position it seems to me). If he wants to listen to Mr. Harvey, it’s his time and it can’t hurt. 

If which celebrity is saying or doing what gets you wound up, well, that, too, is your time and your energy to spend. Me, (all together now), I DON’T CARE!

Can the Center Hold?

Beliefs caveat:

       • Liberal ≠ Democrat

       • Conservative ≠ Republican

       • Both camps have members who are:

              ° mean-spirited

              ° racist, prejudiced, or bigoted

              ° self-centered or selfish

              ° just plain dumb        

                  ° all of the above and more

Each pole is flawed. Each side has its own conceit and each side spits out the opposing label like a foul epithet. Mean-spirited and unfair memes exacerbate the problem. Conservatives often seem likely to think that if something is not their problem, it’s not really a problem at all and, therefore, doesn’t need a solution, or at least not one that shouldn’t be supplied by the individuals for whom there actually IS a problem. Liberals, on the other (left?) hand, seem to tend to believe that EVERY problem everywhere is not only a crisis that must, MUST I tell you, be solved (with an overarching grand(iose?) program), and right this minute, no matter how long that problem has been in the making, failing to realize that problems of long standing are never solved quickly or simply.

Simplistic Metaphors: The conservative safety net is an old rope with a sign at the bottom: “Climb on up, you can do it. Others have,” followed by a pious sermon on self-reliance. The liberal safety net is a hydraulic memory foam mattress. “You know you have a problem, right? Good news, we have the solution! Let us make you comfy and fix everything for you. No, really, just relax, we’ve got this,” followed by a soothing talk about how nothing is your fault. 

Those selfish conservatives like to think everyone ought to be able to better themselves (many, it seems to me, operate under the illusion that they, and they alone, are responsible for their whatever status or success they have and see every playing field as level); if one can’t find a path to success, it’s their own fault or weakness. No better are the busy-body liberals, who seem to think no one can better themselves without the help of an extensive (usually expensive) program, implemented by an overburdened, and some would argue (with at least occasional legitimacy) overreaching, and, too often, incompetent, government.

All of the above are exaggerations, of course, pushing stereotypical perceptions to the extreme, although I have, in fact, actually seen essentially those descriptions as the “other side” is being vilified or decried, all too common in our world today. And what I am seeing even more often today is a seemingly ingrained belief that those who do not think like we do are evil or stupid, not even entitled to basic respect. Contrary beliefs, legitimate criticism of ideas or philosophy, are not only rejected out of hand, but vilified as, at best, the ravings of a lunatic fringe not worthy of even cursory consideration.

It is an ongoing and familiar theme of mine, but we live in a complex society that continues to evolve in increasingly complex ways. Nothing is that simple, neither the problems nor the solutions. If a solution can fit on a bumper sticker or be reduced to a slogan or 30-second commercial, it’s a fraud, and a simplistic fraud at that. Back when I used to teach American politics, one of the things I tried to emphasize was that the solution to every problem creates a new problem or even set of problems that then seem to require new solutions, in a never-ending cycle. However, I stressed, that does NOT mean that we, as a society, should just ignore problems and hope they’ll go away. They will not. Like sores, they will fester and eventually demand immediate attention. Is it not better to anticipate problems and be proactive than to be forced into a panicked reaction?

As polarization expands and strengthens its depressingly vise-like grip on our society and culture, I perceive a serious danger and threat to our future. Politicians on both sides of the aisle are trying to exploit that polarization for their own benefit and power. Instead of encouraging respect for those with a different perspective and a different life journey, they instead discount and demonize. However, even as a left-leaner, while I personally do not think we need a new government agency (Committee to Reduce American Polarization?) to deal with it, neither do I think we can just pretend this increasing polarization is not really a problem.

Here’s a truly radical notion; we could communicate with each other, respecting and giving each other credit for being people of good will, to find a solution that can, if not fully solve the problem, at least ameliorate it and allow us to find other areas where we can continue to work together (which involves that dirty word, “compromise,” of course) for the good of all. There is room in the middle of the poles, but we must be willing to take the first step in that direction and not wait for the other side to go first. Let it start with me – and you.  Kumbaya!