Thursday, May 20, 2010

The NFL thinks that BJs are worse than dog murder!

Ben Roethlisberger happened to hook up with a gold-digging chick without her jealous, vindictive friends and the NFL suspended him 6 games.

Michael Vick systematically tortured furry little dogs to death after events of his interstate gambling ring and received a 2 game suspension.


God damn it do I hate this argument. And it's a relatively common argument. "Vick killed dogs and got 2 games, while Ben did nothing and got 6. What the f is up with that? That's not fair".

I hate it. Hate, hate, hate. Vick lost just about every dollar he had, his career as arguably the most popular player in the NFL and two years of his life to prison, and the fact that Goodell only gave him two games shows that there is some sort of conspiracy? Or that the NFL suspensions are completely out of whack?

You can make an argument that Sheriff Goodell's suspensions are arbitrary and often not fitting, but don't cite Vick and expect to keep my attention. Vick did two years in jail. He lost almost everything. And now, just because he only got two games on top of that, he got off lucky? You don't think that the two years in prison may have shaken him up a bit? That he could not have been sufficiently mollified to Goodell's liking?

I'm looking at Vick's suspension as a 34-game suspension. The fact that Goodell obviously weighed in the jail time that Vick was forced to do when determining NFL discipline does NOT show a conspiracy against the Steelers, whether you believe Ben committed a crime or not. Both did some Shield tarnishing. That's what Goodell is looking at. Goodell felt Ben's behavior was out of control and punished him to reign him in. If Vick didn't go to jail, do you think that he would have only been given two games? Please. I bet he would have gotten the full year. Same goes for Donte' Stallworth. If he would have gotten a year in jail, do you think that Goodell still would have added a full year from the NFL on top of it?

Vick's two games to Ben's six games does not show a lack of fairness. Or a conspiracy. Or a belief that killing dogs is ok while getting BJs in restrooms is absolutely not (or giving, in Jamal Anderson's case). This is disregarding the probable belief of many that one sexual assault on a human is worse than the electrocution of 100 dogs. Vick did a fuckload of time. Ben did not. The legal system punished Vick for sullying the shield. It did not do so to Ben.

So you can tell me that the punishments meted out by the NFL are so arbitrary and the guidelines so vague that they do a disservice to the league's image. And that suspending Roethlisberger sets a poor precedent. That I'll listen to. But if you try to tell me that this shows that the NFL puts dog murder on the back-burner behind public indecency, I'll going to tell you to stop. And if you try to suggest that this exposes the NFL conspiracy against the Steelers, then I'm going to walk away.

Thursday, May 13, 2010

Pick One

'Sup, bitches.

I will preface this by saying I have no knowledge of legal matters and Supreme Court shizz beyond what I read on Wikipedia while bored at work. So, I'll be procrastinating again, going on random Wiki-surfing trips and doing some "tab-jumping" that will lead me on a voyage that hops from Tidal Acceleration to Rutherford B. Hayes and I'll walk away from that with a spotty, incomplete knowledge of something I can barely even describe. So keep that in the Keep that in the front of your mind while reading anything that I write.

Anyway, I was thinking...all of the Jort-party members and Facebook philosophers were all up in arms about the Unconstitutionality of the Commiecare bill last month, right? The Constitution doesn't give the government the right to make people buy healthcare! The Constitution also doesn't say that you can't rape your dog, but I digress. The Constitutional argument, as I'm told, is that this could be argued as an example of the government infringing all up on state's rights. Which, I guess, seems like it could be a reasonable argument. I'm thinking it would also strike down social security and medicare, but that's another argument for another time.

BUT, these same people are defending the Arizona law in a newly energized frenzy of SPEAK ENGLISH! However, isn't this the same thing but in reverse? Isn't this a state attempting to regulate a national matter? This isn't between Mexico and Arizona. This is between Mexico and the U.S. Does Arizona have the right whatever it is they are doing to immigrants? I don't even know what they do when they find illegals under this law. Do they send them back to Mexico? Do they kick them out of Arizona? Do they force them to teach Arizonan children how to turn double plays? I'm not sure. Whatever.

I do think that this Arizona law will be overturned, and I don't think it's exactly like the Federal law. It may be close. But...wouldn't they have to ask everyone for their "papers" to make it Constitutional? If a legal U.S. citizen with a tan goes to Vons supermarket and gets in a fight but cannot produce an ID, he is charged with a misdemeanor, I believe. If Jim from Accounts Payable does the same thing, he likely will not be asked for his ID. So he doesn't get the misdemeanor. That seems like some profiling. AND, the law requiring "reasonable suspicion" of Mexican-ness is quite vague, as a friend has pointed out to me, and is somewhat similar to Kolender v. Lawson, which set a precedent for all matters involving liquid strainers. And this is all ignoring the retarded clause that actually gives citizens a vehicle with which to SUE THE FUCKING POLICE if they don't think they are doing a comprehensive job adhering to the policy.

BUT...f that. I love trainwrecks. And if the right wangers were smart, wouldn't they want this to go to the Supreme Court and hope that their Justices can get it overturned on the state/national matters aspect? Couldn't this then trick the court into having to declare Obamacare as Unconstitutional when it inevitably comes in front of the Court? Would this cause complete anarchy? WOULD MICHELLE BACHMAN FINGERBLAST HERSELF ON THE HOUSE FLOOR?!?!?!

I'd certainly watch some CSPAN to find out.

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Yo Ben...take a break from that film. You might rape somebody again.

Pictured is David Cornwell, a former NFL attorney who now has a field of work that involves, well, making problems for NFL players go away. You can read about him here. Seems like a bad-ass motherf-er.

Of course, that would make him a natural to get involved with Ben Roethlisberger's RAPEAPALOOZA 2010, the latest in an annual rapefest put on the Steelers quarterback. He's been working with Roger Goodell to build the terms of Ben's suspension and eventual return to doing what he loves most...missing quick reads on the football field.

Cornwell wrote a letter to Roger Goodell recently, and the letter was intercepted by noted slueth Peterfluous R. King of Sports Illustrated (the "R" stands for Reconnaissance). It's down a bit on that page.

Dear Commissioner Goodell:

I am confident that we share the same view of the men who play professional football. While the public sees men of extraordinary athletic prowess, rarely is there any acknowledgement of the years of physical and mental preparation or the commitment that is made merely to be in the position to compete on Sundays. This pervasive blind spot tends to cause the public and the media to focus primarily on the football player and not the man who plays football. But, we know better.

My view is that too often there is an inverse relationship between the player's talent and the man's ability to confront and overcome challenges of life away from the game. I have gotten to know Ben extremely well over the past year. Watching Ben off the field has given me great insight into why he has been so successful on it. Ben's rectilinear approach and his method of analysis -- processing things as a quarterback so that he is in control -- have served him well as a football player, but this singular focus is the primary reason that he is facing the challenges that he currently confronts. Life cedes control to no man.

Though I could not have predicted these specifics, I am not surprised that Ben is dealing with a challenge of personal development. His passion for football and the remarkable success resulting from his commitment to the game necessarily means that he has compromised his development in other areas. No person has unlimited capacity. I believe that Ben's challenge is to channel some of the energy he has committed to becoming an extraordinary player into becoming an equally extraordinary person.

While Ben's sexual activities may offend some, anyone would have been hard pressed to predict that Ben's actions would have resulted in such vicious and false allegations. Ben bears exclusive responsibility for the consequences of his choices, but that does not mean that these particular consequences were foreseeable. Whether it is in the privacy of a hotel room or in the more risky environment of a semi-public restroom, a false allegation of rape simply is not within the zone of the foreseeable consequences of consensual sex.

There are two prongs to the intended effect of discipline. One is to discourage repetition of the offending behavior. The other is to encourage behavior that is more consistent with accepted principles and/or established procedures. What Ben should not have done is abundantly clear. What he should have done differently remains elusive. None of the numerous people with whom I have discussed this matter has offered a tangible alternative to the choices that Ben made other than to suggest that Ben "make better choices" in the future.

I cannot fathom how a suspension or any other form of traditional discipline will help Ben make a better choice the next time he decides to have consensual sex. The difficulty that Ben had in articulating a distinction between the risks associated with private and semi-public sex is the product of the undeniable similarity between the Reno and Georgia accusations, even though one event occurred in the privacy of Ben's hotel room and the other in a semi-public bathroom.

As you consider your options, I hope you will focus on an approach that establishes a direct nexus between your response and the issue to which it responds. Whether I am considering these options as Ben's advocate or as the person who has had the privilege of engaging in frank discussions with you unburdened by our professional affiliations, I am unable to discern a link between a suspension and any useful lesson or message that would tend to alter Ben's conduct in the future.

This is one of the more challenging conduct issues that you have confronted because the fundamental issue does not involve an arrest or criminal charges. This is an issue of lifestyle and the need to develop the tools and a method for addressing the unique challenges and opportunities that flow from the stature and celebrity enjoyed by the men who play football. I trust Ben's private conversation with you gave you a glimpse into the difficulty he had in distinguishing who he is from what he does. The public and media have yet to master this distinction. In considering where all of this will lead us, I take comfort in knowing that Ben is not the first 28 year old man to confront the reality of his actions being inconsistent with his values. Luckily, most of us have the benefit of navigating the treacherous waters of maturation outside of the glare of the media and the public.

Following a recent disciplinary hearing, you and I discussed privately your commitment to address each case based on its unique set of facts, without regard for the rancor of the public and the press. I know your commitment remains unchanged. We have also discussed my view that under certain circumstances imposing traditional discipline following a meeting between you and a player tends to devalue the impact of your unique qualities as Commissioner. While your authority emanates from the NFL Constitution and Bylaws, your effectiveness is the product of your ability to connect with the men who play the game in a manner that neither of your predecessors enjoyed.

The nuanced and dynamic nature of the issues that got us here requires an equally nuanced and dynamic response. I look forward to continuing our discussions so that we can structure such an appropriate response.

Very truly yours,


Let me bold one of these parts for emphasis:

Though I could not have predicted these specifics, I am not surprised that Ben is dealing with a challenge of personal development. His passion for football and the remarkable success resulting from his commitment to the game necessarily means that he has compromised his development in other areas. No person has unlimited capacity. I believe that Ben's challenge is to channel some of the energy he has committed to becoming an extraordinary player into becoming an equally extraordinary person.

Forget the rest of the letter, a lot of which I actually agree with. When I cockwhip some chick in public, it doesn't make it to TMZ. BUT...the thought that Ben is out bein' all rapey because he's spending so much time in the film room is one of the most asinine things I've ever heard in my life. And I once listened to Glenn Beck's radio show daily. Ben is just...he is not and likely never will be known for his "commitment to the game". He's not Peyton Manning. Or Tom Brady. Or Jerry Rice. Or the ghost of Steve McNair. Or anyone noted for anything even kind of related to commitment and passion and anything like that. You never saw Jon Gruden punching bitches in the face and blaming it on a 20-hour day at the office. Hines Ward never raped anyone with his tiny Asian wang and attributed it to the extreme passion he has for blocking. Santonio Holmes never....well, never mind. Point is, that's not Ben. And even if it were Ben, it would likely be ridiculous.

I'll buy the concussions theory. That may have some validity and could use some extra study. But saying that Ben Roethlisberger is a tremendous douche because he loves football so much? That repulses the part of my brain that processes information. It legitimately paused while I yelled at it to work and tell me what I had just read. Then it tried to quit and I had to talk it down from the ledge.

Can football possibly be the only thing that would cause such a condition? We'll call it "Personal Evolution Nearly Impossible Syndrome" (PENIS). Ben cannot be the only athlete or other personality suffering from PENIS, can he? Did Kobe Bryant's PENIS cause him to rape that chick in Colorado? Does somebody like the aforementioned Glenn Beck have such a history of douchiness because of PENIS? Bill Cowher obviously had some tremendous passion for did he steer clear of PENIS during his career? And when did Ben's PENIS first take hold? How old are you when you learn not to rape? 20? I doubt Ben was all about football during his time at Miami Ohio, but then again, I'm only basing that on just about every anecdote I've ever heard about his time there.

So play it safe, kids, and take a break from that homework. You wouldn't want geometry to lead to a sexual assault.