THE NFL STILL WON'T OWN UP TO THE BRAIN INJURY PROBLEM

By Ronald T. Fox

The following is a re-worked version  of my April 20th response to Phronesis reader Vito D'Albora. It is based on some new information I found that is relevant to the points I wanted to make.  I changed the title to more closely reflect my thesis.   My apologies if much of this is what many of you previously read.  Stay tuned for more on the NFL's despicable behavior over the brain injury issue; tomorrow I will post a comment I received from a former NFL player.


The original D'Albora comment:

Thanks for your well thought out article. I heard a report on NPR that youth participation in football is down by almost 20%. My son has said that he will not let his boys play football.  On the other hand football is so ingrained in the American culture that people will actually watch the NFL combine and a NFL pre-season game will draw more viewers than a MLB playoff game!

My re-formulated response:

I fully understand how deeply ingrained football is in American popular culture. Further revelations about the risks of permanent brain damage are unlikely to diminish the popularity of the game. As long as fans continue to value "big hits" and tough-guy players who shake off injuries, players remain addicted to the huge money they can make, and the NFL persist in prioritizing its bottom line, we can expect neurological risks to be accepted by most fans, players, and league executives. This doesn't mean, however, that the game can't be made safer and the league can't do more to provide medical treatment for players with traumatic brain injuries. An NFL player shouldn't leave the game knowing that there's a three in 10 chance he will develop Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE), which he will have to face mostly on his own.  Below I offer some suggestions of changes I would like to see implemented.  

DEADLY DECEIT: DID THE NFL BORROW FROM BIG TOBACCO’S SCRIPT?

By Ronald T. Fox

Back in November of 2014 I posted the first of a series of essays on head injuries in football. In that first post (Head Injuries in Football: The NFL Fumbles), I criticized the NFL for what appeared to be a disingenuous campaign to discount scientific evidence that blows to the head in football could have lasting neurological damage and for its character attacks on scientists who presented the damning evidence. I suggested that league-sponsored research on the question of brain injuries was designed to play down the risks of head hits rather than find out what was really going on. A recent investigation by the New York Times sheds new light on the questionable science employed by NFL in researching the head injury problem.  The Times found that NFL researchers omitted numerous documented concussions from its data bank over the five-year period of its investigation, and—even more troubling—it may have borrowed its deceitful script from the tobacco industry: delay, deflect and distract. The key question in all this remains: did the NFL connive to cover up the risks to player’s health or did its committee of doctors and executives simply err on the side of caution?

 

MARCH 2016 BONEHEAD ABSURDITY OF THE MONTH

1. Rock and Roller Ted Nugent. I’m used to Nugent’s angry screeds against liberals, but his latest outburst against American Jews ramps his hate up a notch. On his Facebook page, Nugent posted a graphic which pointed to American Jews as being responsible for the push for more gun regulations in the United States.  Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan A. Greenblatt was quick to respond:
 
“Ted Nugent has a long history of being an equal opportunity offender. But his latest share on Facebook, making the outrageous suggestion that Jews are behind gun control, is nothing short of conspiratorial anti-Semitism. Regardless of one’s views on gun control, this kind of scapegoating of an entire religious group is completely unacceptable and completely divorced from reality.”
 
It should go without saying that anti-Semitism has no place in the gun control debate. Nugent should be ashamed for promoting anti-Semitic content, and we hope that good people on both sides of the gun control debate will reject his tactics and his message. We hope that Nugent will have the good sense to remove this share immediately so that it does not spread virally across the internet. No chance!
 
Not only did Nugent refuse to remove the graphic, he doubled down:
 
“Just when you thought that mankind couldn’t possibly get any dumber or more dishonest, superFreaks rise to the occasion. What sort of racist prejudiced POS could possibly not know that Jews for gun control are Nazis in disguise? "NEVER AGAIN!" Anyone? Anyone?? RUFKM! The founder of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership called me his 2nd Amendment/Freedom hero. The NEVER AGAIN battle cry was universally embraced by all good people who will make sure another Holocaust never happens again. Freaks have plummeted to whole new low. Plummet on punks. Plummet on. Meanwhile I adjust my yamika at my barmitzva playing my kosher guitar. My dad killed Nazis & saved Jews in WWII. Eat me.”
 
Ted Nugent has been on the board of the National Rifle Association since 1995.
 

FEBRUARY 2016 BONEHEAD ABSURDITY OF THE MONTH

1. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. After the US Supreme Court struck down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Abbott wasted little time in filing a brief to re-institute the state’s discriminatory redistricting plan, the same plan the Supreme Court had ruled as unconstitutional. When US Attorney General Eric Holder denied Abbott’s request, Texas filed a lawsuit under Section 2 basing its claim on the following arguments. Give Texas credit for honesty. From the filed brief:
 
DOJ’s accusations of racial discrimination are baseless. In 2011, both houses of the Texas Legislature were controlled by large Republican majorities, and their redistricting decisions were designed to increase the Republican Party’s electoral prospects at the expense of the Democrats....The redistricting decisions of which DOJ complains were motivated by partisan rather than racial considerations, and the plaintiffs and DOJ have zero evidence to prove the contrary. It is perfectly constitutional for a Republican-controlled legislature to make partisan districting decisions, even if there are incidental effects on minority voters who support Democratic candidates.
 
You know, having them actually come right out and say it--that they wanted to restrict potential Democratic voters--is long overdue. But wait!  There's more. To address the actual accusations of racial bias and discrimination, Texas is using the argument that "Yeah, there may be an isolated incident or two, but it's NOTHING like it was in 1965".  
 
Texas claims that even if it did discriminate, and it stresses that it did not, it was nothing as bad as “the ‘pervasive,’ ‘flagrant,’ ‘widespread,’ and ‘rampant’ discrimination that originally justified preclearance in 1965.”
 
So as long as Texas skies aren’t alight with flames from burning crosses, what’s the big whoop? So, Texas is arguing that Section 2, and in fact the entire reasons for preclearance are all based on conditions in 1965.  And that since "things are better than in 1965" then Section 2 is null and void. Better than 1965? With Texas strict registration rules disenfranchising an estimated nearly one million voters in the 2014 election, this assertion is highly questionable. The only thing lacking is a literacy test.
 

CALLING RONALD REAGAN; YOUR PARTY NEEDS YOU

By Ronald Fox

The Eternal Optimist

I ran into Ronald Reagan in a dream last night.  The Senate GOP vow to not hold confirmation hearings on anyone President Obama nominates to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court had him shaking his head in frustration at what’s become of his beloved party.  This latest case of Republican intransigence underscores once again the sharp contrast between Reagan and the current crop of party leaders.  It angers me to no end that the Republican elite continues to cite Reagan as their model conservative. It is an insult to the Reagan legacy. 

Don’t get me wrong; I was no fan of Reagan during his era.  My values for a more inclusive, egalitarian, and diplomatic America didn’t square well with his core beliefs in lower taxes, limited government, and a robust military presence, not to mention his support for repressive dictatorial regimes throughout Latin America and the Greater Middle East.  Contemporary Republican ideological dogmatism, political obstructionism, and war-mongering, however, have made me look at Reagan in a new light.  Oh how I wish today's Republican leaders shared Reagan’s pragmatism, penchant for compromise, sunny political optimism. and broad appeal.  Sadly, these are current GOP taboos.

Since 2013, I have posted three commentaries counting the ways Reagan the politician differed from the image held by most Republicans today:  What Would Ronald Reagan Do? Conservatives Are Clueless; Ronald Reagan and Contemporary Republicans; and, Response to "Anonymous" Regarding Reagan and Contemporary Republicans. The 2016 GOP presidential campaign has furthered sharpened the distinction between Reagan and the Republican contenders, all of whom have dropped his name as their role model. I only wish it were true.    

Firmly entrenched as the party of “no,” it’s hard to envision a bright future for the GOP.  New York Times Opinion writer Jacob Weisberg touched on this theme in an op-ed in yesterday's Times.  I’ve decided to post it as a guest commentary.

THE TRUMP PHENOMENON: REPUBLICANS HAVE CREATED THEIR OWN MONSTER

By Ronald T. Fox

Republican establishment leaders are scratching their heads over the Donald Trump phenomenon. They seem shocked that so many party faithful would gravitate to such a reckless demagogue whose acidic rhetoric has managed to alienate, among others, women, Latinos and young voters--constituencies the party needs to attract if it hopes to win in November.  Worse yet, perhaps, it has confounded the billionaire fatcats that have been bankrolling the party.  The Trump insurgency is threatening to unravel the GOP and the conservative principles it holds so dear.  Try as they have, party leaders and many of its deep-pocketed supporters have so far not been able to stifle the Trump juggernaut.

Many Republicans leaders see the insurrection among traditional party faithful mainly as a product of Trump's unique, larger-than-life personality, his ability to dominate the airwaves, and his deftness in appealing to voter anger with tough-sounding promises.  They're not seeing the bigger picture.

What explains the rebelliousness among the GOP ranks?  For an answer, the party's establishment needs to look in the mirror.

JANUARY 2016 BONEHEAD ABSURDITY OF THE MONTH

 

1. House Speaker Paul Ryan. The new House Speaker, who insists on lots of family time for himself, explained his opposition to paid family leave for other people:

"I don't think people asked me to be speaker so I can take more money from hardworking taxpayers to create some new federal entitlement. But I think people want to have members of Congress that represent them, that are like them," Ryan said. "Don't you want your member of Congress to be a citizen legislator who lives with you, among you, who has your own kinds of concerns, who wants to spend time with his children on Saturdays and Sundays? "That I think is what most people want in their life, a balance. So if you're asking me because I want to continue being the best dad and husband and speaker I can be — getting that work-life balance correct — means I should sign up for some new unfunded entitlement, that doesn't make any sense to me."

He doesn't want to take money from hardworking taxpayers ... to give those hardworking taxpayers paid leave if they have a child or need to care for a sick family member. He opposes an unfunded entitlement ... except that "unfunded entitlement" is, in California for instance, actually a small payroll deduction that's helped 1.8 million Californians take paid leave, 90 percent of them to care for a new baby, over the law's first decade, without hurting businesses or killing jobs.

In short, Paul Ryan does not care about the facts. He cares about spending time with his family while standing in the way of you doing the same. He has a job that lets him make that kind of demand, and if you're not so lucky and powerful, screw you. Basic rights for you—the kind of thing that three American states and virtually every other country on earth can somehow provide—can be boiled down to meaningless Republican buzzwords for "no."