The NFL and domestic violence

Will Leitch, a senior writer for something called Sports on Earth among other things, has written in this past Sunday's edition of USA Weekend, that American football is wrong for attempting to tone down the actions of its players, especially the on field but also the off field antics. He apparently does not like the new rules against excessive celebration and dunking the ball over the goalpost after a touchdown, for example, lamenting that the NFL is denying players their personality, whatever that means.

Well, we'll tell you what that means: it means showboating or grandstanding, things themselves which were once thought unsportsmanlike. The NFL is quite right in trying to eliminate such aspects of the game.

They are sports, after all. Mere games which, for a long time anyway, we were encouraged to participate in for exercise as well as to learn how to be good sports. This surely means that you do not rub your opponents face into the ground when you're just beaten him for a score. Some high fives and a few a few pats on the helmet should be all the celebration you need, allowing for greater celebrations at more climatic moments to be fair.

Mr. Leitch claims that fans often want individual players to rise above the game. This is a good point, yet not for the reasons he seems to believe. He uses, wrongly, we're wont to think, Michael Jordan as an example of such rising. But did Mr. Jordan 'rise' by belittling his opponents, or by carousing all hours of the day and night? Not that we know. We believe that better exemplars of becoming more than the game come through respecting the game and its fans, transcending their sport to a level which takes the game upwards with them. In local lore this would be such folk heroes as Al Kaline and Alan Trammell, and more broadly the soon to be retired Derek Jeter, whose grace and class both on and off the field has made their sublime legacies better for all three as well as for baseball itself.

We cannot help but think that it is no coincidence that the arrogant, thug mentality which has permeated American football for so many years has made so many players less than stellar citizens. Hardly a day goes by without news of some new domestic violence issue, or gunshot at a nightclub involving an NFL player. The League is trying to address those questions too. As it should. But at the end of the day, sports should be sportsmanlike. That means essentially that you let your actions speak for you. If those actions are profound enough, the player will receive his due. If he must advertise for them, he likely doesn't merit the accolades anyway.

Labor Day 2014

Labor Day weekend is upon us, and that means many things to many people. Mostly, it seems, it is meant to be a relaxing time with family and friends. There's nothing with that, of course. But what is Labor Day really, and how does it relate to conservatism?

It is intended, most would say, as a celebration of the labor of the working men and women of our country. Fair enough; labor in all its forms is the backbone of our economy. Further, a fair days' work is something which ought to be prized and seen proudly. The contributions which we make to society when we engage in wholesome work should be satisfying to workers and the beneficiaries of work on about the same plane.

Yet the honor of Labor Day is felt with particular pride in and around Detroit and Wayne County, and why not? As the cradle of the automotive industry and the famed arsenal of democracy during World War II, among other contributions to Americana, we should feel good about our place in history. Then too, with our local economy being so hard hit by the recession, we may well feels the pangs of economic restriction more keenly than many other places in the country.

So where does this leave us with regard to the right wing? Simply that, seen in the, ahem, right light, conservatism is a great friend to the worker. Conservatism respects the rights of all, particularly, believe it or not, those most susceptible to economic strife. Conservatism recognizes the value of work and of the worker, and more, of the rights inherent in work. We respect the right of the individual to seek gainful employment in an open arena of job seekers and employers working freely and respectfully towards everyone's best interest. Conservatism, if allowed to become fully operational, would let the market works its wonders, and everyone would benefit, as they did in the Reagan years and also, truth be told, in the Clinton years under a Republican Congress which did more for the general welfare than our philanderous ex-President.

In short, conservatives are for labor. With the right amount of consideration in return, we could see this current mess ended quickly and spectacularly.

Jindal, Biden, Jerry Brown, and Carl Levin

Just another Sunday moanin'.

California has sent Governor Jerry a Brown a bill which will ban one use plastic bags. If this isn't a feel good piece of legislation, then what is? It's simply too easy to make laws which have no practical effect yet look good. It sure beats dealing with infrastructure problems, eh, Sacramento?

Hooray for Bobby Jindal! The Louisiana Governor is suing the Obama Administration over the use of Common Core standards in education, saying it would violate states' rights (as education has always been primarily a state issue). We've never understood how liberals, the champions of diversity, have always went for large, nationwide mandates when it suits their purpose. Apparently, diversity requires large, ham handed government programs in order to survive. Who would have thought it?

Michigan Senator Carl Levin believes that any tax savings Burger King might gain as a result of buying the Canadian based Tim Horton's coffee store chain and moving its world headquarters to Canada would be offset by public displeasure of the move. That would mean an overall loss of revenue for the fast food giant.

We think the best conservative response would be to pick a day and eat at a local BK for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Why condemn a company for doing what's best for itself? Each one of us as individuals do the same for ourselves and families all the time. Why blame a big company for wanting to improve its tax status? Besides, crying about Burger King simply won't stop most Americans from going to one. The average guy just doesn't care about national and international tax questions when he wants a Whopper with onion rings.

Vice President Joe Biden will be here in Detroit for Labor Day. We cannot wait for his visit. It will make our Tuesday column very easy to pen.

Ciao, friends.

Is Football aslo a Blood Sport?

A genre of supposed sports which has been growing in recent years involves, basically, guys beating the devil out of each other inside cages. It goes by several names, such as the UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championship) and under the umbrella of mixed martial arts. But however your view them, we can be sure of two things: that they are not true sports, and that they are immoral.

We will go a step further and add prize fight boxing into the mix. No athletic effort in which the primary aim is to hurt a human being is a sport. We have even found ourselves wondering whether American football is, perhaps, immoral, seeing as the only way to stop an offensive player is by sheer physicality. Intending to harm someone, as fighting (and pushing and grabbing too) until someone can continue no further is surely meant to do nothing save cause injury, is always wrong. Calling it a sport in an attempt at legitimacy is nothing less than an insult to our intelligence. We must see these things for what they are: gory rituals of false bravado.

There's no point defending them on the grounds that no one forces these guys to fight or play football. People at one time regularly agreed to duels and we put a stop to that inane practice for the very reason that it was wrong. Agreement between two or more folks on a plan of action cannot make that action moral. What we do must be moral in and of itself to have any decent bearing at all. Besides, we do force them to participate, in a way. We pay them to do it after all.

If we are not careful we will devolve into a nation which likes blood and harm for its own sake. We must remember that sports are intended for recreation, for fans and players alike. If all we want is blood, we may as well live in a slaughterhouse. Yet that would be thought insane.

Events which intend to inflict real physical harm are not sports. We need to rise above our animal lusts and see athletics in their best light: ultimately meaningless contests which allow us a respite from the daily grind. Anything more than that and we simply go beyond their scope.

South Carolina Student Suspended for Using the word 'Gun'

A South Carolina High School student has been suspended for writing a story which was supposed to be written as though it were a Facebook post. It was intended to be listed as if it were a status update on a Facebook page. The student, Alex Stone of Summerville High School, was arrested and suspended because the 'update' used the word gun even when talking about having killed his neighbor's per dinosaur. you can read about it here: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/s-student-arrested-writing-gun-dinosaur-article-1.1910447

Set aside if you will the general absurdity of the situation. We all know that dinosaurs no longer exist. We also should see that the reaction to the assignment was extreme: when you tell students to write a fiction then you should expect to get a fiction. Even the simple use of the word gun should not have been such a red flag. What we would like explained is why such an assignment was given in the first place.

To make school fun, perhaps? As an attempt to engage the student in the assignment? Neither reason is terribly stupid, one might suppose. But does address the real point of education when students are told to write a fictional Facebook post?

Not really. Why not give them a serious reading assignment and have them answer serious questions about it? If the intent is to teach good writing then it seems that they ought to be given examples of good writing and then asked to emulate that. We can hardly imagine Carl Sandberg or Robert Frost writing things willy-nilly as though merely sharing a quick tale with friends who might respond, LOL!

It is assignments such as these which make modern US high schools inferior to many others in the world. If we want serious education then we must take education seriously. This means teaching students to write not just anything, but to write well about things worth writing about. Until then, we shouldn't expect anything except silly tales about shooting dinosaurs. All that gives are easy grades for the teachers and inflated GPAs.

Education deserves better than dumb assignments and overreactions to them. Until we begin to truly educate, we will only have more such drama. In fact, in the current environment of the schools, we invite it.

Darren Wilson's Past

Okay, we had hoped by now to keep quiet, at least for a few days, about the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. But we simply can't.

It appears that Officer Darren Wilson began his police career at a department which has been disbanded because of allegations of racial tension. The Huffington Post reports that news here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/24/darren-wilson-jennings-police-department_n_5704133.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec3_lnk4%26pLid%3D519874

We actually have no problem with this revelation. Although it should not be a factor in whether Officer Wilson is guilty of murder or not we recognize that it's okay to look into the character traits of a person in determining whether they are capable of such heinous acts. Just like it's okay to look into Michael Brown's character to see if he may be the type of person to assault a cop, but being willing to set that factor aside should it be irrelevant to Officer's Wilson's actions against him.

What galls us is that we aren't supposed to look at Brown's history in determining his possible culpability in a very serious matter, yet are encouraged to study Wilson's past to see if we can glean evidence that he might be racist. If there's any such thing as a double standard, this is it.

Either stop looking at the past of both of the central characters involved in the incident or allow everyone in law enforcement to probe into them and draw their own conclusions. We can't presume Michael Brown a thug simply because of his personal history. And Officer Wilson isn't automatically guilty due to a past association with racism. All we ask is consistency, and a willingness to give the law a chance to follow threads wherever they may lead.

What Does Islam Support?

How we handle the Muslim world is obviously one of the trickiest tasks we face in the coming years. There is an awful lot of distrust of Islam and no real idea of how to allay the fears of it which many seem to harbor. Yet how we view and work with the Islamic world is nevertheless critical to our safety in the future.

So, how do we view Islam? That is a question which doesn't have an easy answer. The most logical point would be to look towards Muslim teachings for guidance. Yet that brings on a few difficult questions, not the least of which is: who exactly do we go to for answers?

There are many more sects within Islam than most folks imagine. A brief internet search reveals that there at at least five branches of the religion, dominated by the Sunni and the Shi'a with several smaller groups. Within Islam are four schools of thought, any of which are deemed valid to follow.

This rudimentary understanding of Islam really only heightens the problem. When there are many sects of a religion, coupled with the lack of any real hierarchical structure within it, then who actually speaks for Islam? The ones who preach peace or the ones who cry war?

Compare this to he Catholic Church, were we find a highly structured organization which can be approached as to the Catholic stance on such and such a question. We may not like what it says to us, but we cannot doubt what it means to say.

Unless we can find a source of Islam which speaks for all of Islam, can we actually ever know whether it as a movement can be trusted or not? This isn't to say that individual Muslims are bad people. As likely as not, the overwhelming majority of them are fine and outstanding members of their communities struggling with day to day life as most everyone else does. Yet do those folks speak for all of Islam when they speak, or simply for themselves as they see it no matter how heartfelt?

Without a final source on what Islam means it will be difficult to understand it more fully. And without such understanding, can the other hurdles ever be overcome?