Friday, August 18, 2017

The NFL's Last Straw

Revised version.

Artwork by the artist.

Ok. That's it.

I'm done.

Stick a fork in it.

El Finito.

I'm through with the NFL, and no, it has nothing to do with Colin Kaepernick. That's another topic for another blog.

The NFL has been sticking its foot in its mouth since it decided to create its own moral compass, and institute a personal conduct policy in 2007. This was supposedly designed to curb and deter irresponsible off-field behavior from players, and to retain a "clean" public image. Since then it has done nothing but dug an even larger hole for itself with seemingly selective justice against certain teams and players, hypocrisy, inconsistent punishments, double standards, and above all created a tyranny in leadership in the form of current commissioner Roger Goodell.  Now players can receive long term suspensions for off the field behavior that have no impact on the game whatsoever, while actions that can directly jeopardize the impact and integrity of the game either go unabated or receive much smaller suspensions, as what has happened to the New England Patriots, head coach Bill Belicheck, and quarterback Tom Brady.

So much for integrity.

Last week  Dallas Cowboys running back Ezekiel Elliott was placed on a six-week suspension for "violating" its vague domestic policy, where he was accused of assaulting his then-girlfriend in July of 2016. This happened despite not being charged by the local police department, citing inconsistent evidence from the accuser, and an affadavit from a friend who states the accuser was lying. This comes after a year long investigation performed by the NFL, after the Columbus, Ohio police department decided not to press charges. A 14-month long investigation.

So much for due process.

In its statement last week, the NFL stated it received "substantial and persuasive" evidence that led them to believe Elliott committed the offense. Sounds like circumstantial evidence is being used here.

So much for innocence until PROVEN guilty.

This reminds me of an article written in a local newspaper sometime in 2013. The author, a black female public figure, came up with this erroneous opinion that if a young woman accuses a man of sexual assault or violence, and the evidence appears inconclusive, your safest bet would be to take the side of the young lady. She reasoned that if in the final analysis the man is actually innocent of the charges, he can recover, whereas if the accuser is correct but not believed, it can have devastating effects. Wow.

So according to her analysis, if a man who spends time in prison for assault/rape is found innocent, he should be able to fully recover with no problems at all. Even if he can't get back the 1-10-20 years he spent in prison falsely accused.


Recently Elliott has joined with the NFLPA and appealed the decision. This promises to get very messy.

Even messier than the Ray Rice fiasco in 2014. Nobody likes to recall that public relations nightmare, however reflecting on the Ray Rice incident again provides us with much insight on why the NFL continues to suffer from bad PR today, and who may really be behind all of this mess.

Ray Rice and his then-fiance Janay had an altercation in February of 2014. He was charged with misdemeanor assault, arrested, and shortly after released. The NFL in response suspended him with a two-game suspension later that summer. From the initial response, both Ray and Janay were content with the decision. Goodell even defended the decision shortly after when confronted by women's groups.

Then things took a turn for the worst, but not by their hands. Somehow that celebrity-gossip tv show-suddenly turned- reliable news source TMZ  got a hold of the videotape and broadcast the incident on their show. Then the crap really hit the fan.

The "public outrage", mostly comprised of women's groups, forced Roger Goodell to reverse Ray's punishment, suspending him indefinitely, after the initial suspension. So now we have double jeopardy.

So much for constitutional rights.

If one looks at the tape without others' commentary, they will clearly see Ray Rice backing up from Janay, and Janay charging at Ray, to which he quickly reacts by punching her, laying her out flat on the elevator floor.

It's not a pretty sight to see, however such a sight should not lead us to judge by our emotions and jump to conclusions, which is obviously what happened here, referring to the altercation as"domestic violence", which is code language for men who have the audacity to hit women. They could not claim spousal abuse because clearly it was a fight between two people, and Janay started the altercation by slapping him.

So despite the cries of feminism and equality, we still seem to have this contradictory ruling that a man cannot defend himself when a woman charges at him.

Man charges at man = man can defend himself
Man charges at woman = woman can defend herself
Woman charges at woman = woman can defend herself
Woman charges at man = man cannot defend himself.

Clearly an open door to assault by females toward men.

If I stated right now that the average man is physically stronger than the average woman, I would be called a misogynist. You know it's true. But a woman can use that same analysis to prove that a man should not put his hands on a woman. This is the problem humans face when using double standards to achieve "equality" among the sexes.

Shortly after the indefinite suspension, Goodell received a letter signed by 16 female senators, comprising of fourteen Democrats and two Republicans, stating that under no unconditional terms should a man who hits a woman be given a second chance to play.

Examine Senator Kirsten Gillibrand's take on the Ray Rice issue.

Listen to the language, and how she says Ray admits to "beating" her, not hitting her. When did one or two punches constitute a beating? She describes it as if Ray was constantly punching Janay even as she lay on the floor unconscious and defenseless. The video shows differently. Then she describes the reaction by the league and team in a way most typical of feminists/liberals, that of this "patriarchy" where every male is out to get the woman, and will cover up any damning evidence that could incriminate them.

Remember now, sixteen women senators signed that letter and sent it to Roger Goodell.

Seems to me the people were more upset that Janay was knocked unconscious rather than the fight itself, but honestly ask yourself, if Ray charged at Janay, and in self-defense she happened to knock him unconscious, would we have the same reaction towards Janay?

I think not.

Even Janay herself took to social media to voice her opinions about how the media and the public blew things out of proportion, and also to show support for her husband. But what was the response by the media?

Mostly to view her as a co-dependent, beaten and battered woman.

Even Democrat Senator Richard Blumenthal chimed in by presenting legislation designed to compel leagues to adopt and enforce zero-tolerance policies toward "domestic violence", code word for men who hit women.

Wow. I wish the Democrat senators had that same passion and sympathy for those little babies they feel have no right to live, using ridiculous pseudonyms such as "reproductive rights", code name for abortion. Rather than show compassion, they develop sick theories and redefine rape to include men who have sex with women without verbally asking, "honey, can we have sex?" or "baby, can I have some of you?"

And having stripper/models/porn stars to advocate this mess does nothing positive for your credibility.

I wish those same Republican senators would've kept that same pacifist approach that they try to spew on those countries and populations they wish to oppress and take their resources.

So much for compassion.
So much for unconditional love.
So much for forgiveness.
So much for equity among men and women.
So much for loving thy enemy.
So much for turning the other cheek.

And some of us actually felt that the likes of Hillary Clinton would be a better choice for President of the United States than Donald Trump? Really? As one person stated, they're both two wings on the same dirty bird.

And while we're on the feminist topic, since they're so upset with White Male Privilege, where were they to add support to the Native Americans for the removal of the racist Washington Redskins nickname? Where was Blumenthal in all of this? Where was his legislation to enforce the removal of such an offensive name? Where was the outcry for the removal of Team Owner Daniel Snyder for upholding the name?


So much for women's rights. It's been proven time and time again that it's not equality they seek, Their actions have proven that even THEY don't believe in equality, nor do they respect diversity. They would rather try to disrupt a current order, regardless if it is just or unjust, or even worse gain an upper hand, an advantage. They seek the same privileges they accuse men of fostering.  And now they have an upper hand in the decision making in the NFL. Roger Goodell answers to nobody...

...except women.

But the NFL has no one to blame but themselves for this mess. I can say it all started when they decided to court the largest consumer bloc in the world; women.

Using Breast Cancer Awareness as a Trojan Horse and creating a slick PR campaign, the NFL decided to tap to the female market in 2008.  Players were then "encouraged" in the month of October to add pink to their uniforms. The playing fields became decorated in pink, and pink paraphenalia containing the NFL logo was heavily promoted and sold during this month.

Since then it has done nothing but made a mockery of itself, insulting the intelligence of its fans, patrons, and it has given selective outside entities certain entitlements, while leaving the very players who sacrifice their health, reputation and overall well being at risk in order to patronize a certain demographic that at one time had no say nor impact in the affairs of this institution.

My interest in watching football began waning back when the colleges began succumbing to the corporate "sponsors". All of a sudden, the Cotton Bowl kept switching sponsors and names from The Mobil Cotton Bowl to the AT&T Cotton Bowl, to now having the annual New Year's Cotton Bowl game being played outside the Cotton Bowl itself. Then the collegiate stadiums and the bowl games followed suit and became known for their sponsors name.

Then the corporate fever hit the professional circuit. With teams leaving cities abruptly, billion-dollar stadiums surfacing, people being displaced from their homes, among other things, football seemed more like a political bargaining chip more than mere entertainment. And now this. Too many outside interests have spoiled a great spectator sport, and a game I enjoyed playing in the yard as a child.

So much for the NFL.

And I still haven't commented on the Colin Kaepernick situation.... yet.

No comments:

Post a Comment

My Bloggy Friends

My Favorite Blogs