September 22, 2014--Willy, Ben, Me: Ray Price

Willy said, "If they didn't have the pictures there would be no issue."

"Of what?" Ben asked. "What are you talking about?"

"About that football player who punched his girlfriend."

"She was his fiancée and is now his wife," I said.

"What difference does that make?" Willy said.

"What's your point?" Ben asked, sounding annoyed, but smiling, "My coffee's getting cold."

"It's a simple one. How do they put it about pictures being worth a thousand words? Well, in this case, they're worth lots more than that. If it weren't for the film he might not even have been suspended. Or maybe at most for just those two games. As he originally was."

"It is a terrible thing he did, Ray Price."

"You'll get no argument from me. But what really has me upset are all those cameras."

"All those cameras?" Ben was puzzled.

"You like the idea that you go into the supermarket--Hannifords--and they have cameras all over the store?"

"That's to cut down on thefts," I said.

"And at the gas station too," he pressed on, ignoring me. "And where you live probably on every street corner." He was referring to the fact that we live part of the year in New York City.

"To tell you the truth," I said, "I've given up on having any privacy whatsoever. Store cameras, street cameras, and, as with Ray Price, elevator cameras. They even put them in ours in New York. And, of course, it's even worse with the ability to read your emails and listen in on your phone conversations. And I'm not only talking about the government. All those hackers too."

I winked at both Willy and Ben who are quite conservative and frequently rail about getting the government off our backs and out of our lives. Many times I half agree with them.

"Those street cameras down in Boston helped the police track down the marathon bombers before they could go to New York and do more harm. How do you feel about that?" Willy asked.

"I guess I feel OK about that," I said. "But it surprises me to hear you saying this, considering you're both pretty conservative and I would think wouldn't want to have your privacy invaded like that."

"But it's only pictures," Ben said."I wouldn't be OK with this if the pictures also had sound so they could listen in on my conversations."

"That also surprises me," I said. "You're all right with the pictures but only if there's no sound? I don't get the distinction."

"Freedom of speech. First Amendment," he said, thinking that was enough to say to make his point and convince me that the videos without sound are not a problem.

"What about the right to privacy? Though," I quickly added since they know the Constitution, "that's not specifically stated in the Bill of Rights."

"Maybe, but about the pictures," Willy said, "and about that football player, my point, beyond the privacy business--which I also have concerns about--is how having pictures of something can make us do things very different than if something happens out of sight and is not on film."

"Say more," I said.

"Well, take those two Americans who recently were beheaded. The fact that the ISIS people videotaped it and put it on the Internet caused us--Obama really--to change his policy. Whatever one thinks about him or those ISIS people," he spat, "we know Obama didn't want to get directly involved there. And I agree with him about that. But because of the pictures he had no choice."

"You're comparing what happened to those two reporters being beheaded to Ray Price?" I said, "Come on Willy, get serious."

"I'm not comparing what they did but the fact is that there wouldn't be the same reaction, the big brouhaha, if what they did wasn't captured on film. With no pictures Price would have gotten his slap on the wrist and the terrorists' story would have been in the news for just a few days, of course after speeches condemning them and so forth. But there wouldn't be this crisis with Congress and the public clamoring for us to go after them. Including into Syria and, who knows, with American boys on the ground before too long."

"We've seen that before," Ben said, taking a deep breath. "And we know where that got us."

With that depressing thought we lapsed into silence and turned back to paying attention to our coffee.

September 15, 2014--You Gotta Be a Football Hero . . .

There is so much hypocrisy when it comes to big time sports.

College kids in Division 1 schools play football and basketball in sold out stadiums which in many ways are TV studios since the big bucks come from the broadcast networks and cable outlets such as ESPN. But these athletes who are responsible for making millions for their schools are not allowed to have agents, accept free sneakers from Nike, much less get paid for their efforts.

Hypocrisy is rampant as well in professional sports, which unabashedly are all about money. The teams themselves are worth a fortune. The LA Clippers recently sold for $2.0 billion and the hapless Buffalo Bills are on the market and could yield a cool billion. Elite players can command up to $20 million a year for throwing passes, slam dunking, or hitting home runs. TV contracts to show NCAA football or basketball games earns teams tens of millions a year.

But in all sports, though making money is the bottom line, not unrelated to the drive for profits, athletes are expected to be role models, especially to children, and lead exemplary lives. Even though we turn them into literally larger-than-life superheroes, in their private lives we require these demigods to live normally. Even acts that to ordinary people might be considered misdemeanors can get them in serious trouble--suspended for a game or two or banned from playing and collecting their salaries for a year or even a lifetime.

While managing the Cincinnati Reds, the legendary Pete Rose was banned for life by the baseball commissioner for betting on games, though never against his own team. Again hypocritically, everyone knows that half the reason sports are as popular as they are is because of gambling, most of it illegal. Last year, for example, on the Super Bowl, on that one game, an estimated $119 million was wagered.

We are currently seeing more hypocrisy in action.

This time regarding the Baltimore Ravens' (former) running back Ray Price. "Former" is in parentheses because the Ravens terminated his contract when a video was broadcast of Price assaulting his then fiancée. The league itself became involved when the commissioner, Roger Goodell, (who earns $44 million a year) at first suspended him for two games but subsequently, under pressure from women's groups among others, made that suspension "indefinite."

What Rice did--and this isn't alleged--is reprehensible; but, to take a contrarian position, did what he did, as unacceptable as it is, justify ending his ability to earn a living as a football player? Especially since his now wife has forgiven him, asserting that what he did was, not to her, a relationship deal-breaker, and that he has apologized and wants to enter an anger management treatment program.

Yes, what the Ravens did, what the League did, was within their rights. The NFL Personal Conduct Policy statement, which is a part of every player's contract, stipulates that disciplinary action may be taken if a player commits "criminal offenses including, but not limited to, those involving: the use or threat of violence; domestic violence and other forms of partner abuse; theft and other property crimes; sex offenses . . ."

Disciplinary action is permitted, the statement continues, for "conduct that undermines or puts at risk the integrity and reputation of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL players."

It's all about "reputation," which owners and league officials feel is linked directly to their bottom line--more than $10 billion in 2013--and since women now make an estimated 45 percent of the NFL fan base . . .

Rice's case feels as if it might be a rush to judgement or at least punishment that doesn't fit the crime. Is this one horrible act enough for the Ravens to have the power to terminate his contract? Shouldn't the NFL's disciplinary process require a conviction in a court of law before taking away one's livelihood? Are there other workplace equivalents? If an IBMer committed spousal abuse would that in itself justify barring him from the high-tech industry as the suspension will surely lead to Rice being banned for life from future NFL employment?

It is also ironic that football itself is substantially about violence, presumably controlled violence (though ask the dozens of former players who are now suffering from traumatic brain injuries how controlled it was). Football is largely about 300-pound men in versions of body armor slamming into each other with enough force to knock opponents flat. Even unconscious. It is our form of gladiatorial combat.

Just a few years ago, in 2009, the New Orleans Saints were found to have instituted a practice where players earned cash bonuses for inflicting injuries on the opposition, with the most money awarded for injuring quarterbacks enough so that they would have to be carried off the field on stretchers.

Not incidentally, though some of these hits were flagrant, not once during the 2009-10 season did game officials penalize any of them. And when the NFL learned of Bountygate, the discipline meted out to the Saints were mere slaps on the wrist compared to those imposed on Ray Price.