APRIL 2016 BONEHEAD ABSURDITY OF THE MONTH

 

I decided to organize this month’s absurdities around the theme of women’s rights, which have come under frequent attack during the current GOP presidential campaign season. Lest you think we’ve made notable progress on women’s rights, take a look at the following:

 
1. New Hampshire Republican Representatives Josh Moore and Al Baldasaro. Moore and Baldasaro support a bill in the state legislature that would make it a misdemeanor for women to purposely expose their nipples publicly without regard to whether it might offend or alarm someone. Noting that it had only male sponsors, Democratic representative Amanda Bouldin, strongly condemned the bill, which brought crude comments from Moore and Baldasaro on Facebook.
 
Moore, a co-sponsor of the bill, wrote that women who want to expose their breasts should have no problem with a man’s inclination to stare at it and “grab it.”
 
Baldasaro chimed in to disparage Bouldin’s appearance:
 
“No disrespect, but your nipple would be the last one I would want to see… “You want to turn our family beach’s (sic) into a pervert show?”
 
Public outrage forced Moore to withdraw his name from the bill, but Baldasaro was not to be deterred. He accused Bouldin of trying to quash free speech, saying:
 
“We have a constitution… It’s there for a reason, and I’ll never be silent.”
 
No comment necessary.
 

FORMER NFL PLAYER RELATES HIS NIGHTMARISH CONCUSSION STORY

By Ronald T. Fox

I have now posted eight commentaries on the subject of head injuries in football. The information I used in writing these pieces came from secondary sources, based on what I learned from reading various writings on Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE). With an expanding body of research on CTE and thousands of concussion lawsuits against the NFL, there is a wealth of information to scrutinize. Not being a football player who experienced blows to the head or a neuroscientist who has actually looked into a diseased brain, I can only offer a layman’s view of the brain injury problem. This is OK as far as it goes, but it is important to also hear first-hand accounts. I recently received such an account from a Phronesis reader who was a former NFL player.
 
In past posts on head injuries in football, I've criticized the NFL for its shoddy research on the long-term effects of concussions,  tardiness in admitting that CTE was a problem, belated implementation of a concussion protocol, and, most recently, for its possible collusion with Big Tobacco and its failure to provide medical care for retired players suffering from traumatic brain injuries.  My recent post, Deadly Deceit: Did the NFL Borrow from Big Tobacco's Script? drew a response from George Visger, who played for the San Francisco 49ers in the early 1980s.

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.