Monday, February 16, 2015

Hey, It's Only Rape

Let us revisit an NFL issue that is really about liberals. When the video of Ray Rice knocking out his fiancée in a New Jersey elevator hit the news, liberals went crazy and sanctimoniously demanded that anyone accused of domestic violence be immediately terminated and shunned by society without trial and rights be damned (“NO TOLERANCE!!”). I noted at the time that as always with liberals, this extreme reaction was just a knee-jerk response meant to satisfy their self-righteousness, and that before things were over, they would completely flip their “principled” positions. Not only did they do that, but now uber-liberal sportswriter Peter King is actually arguing that we should ignore serial rapes. No... I'm not kidding.

When the Rice issue first arose, every single liberal sportswriter I can name immediately dashed out columns trying to outbid each other on smug political correctness... Rice needs to be suspended! Suspended?! Heck, he needs to be banned for life! For life? You mean forever!! Hell yes! And the NFL needs to get back the money they paid him! And it doesn’t matter that his stupid fiancée doesn’t want him punished... victims can’t be trusted when they defend the accuser..

Essentially, no punishment was harsh enough. Rice’s rights meant nothing to these writers because they claimed that domestic abuse is such a horrible thing that ideas like innocence until proven guilty should be pushed aside. The allegation itself should be enough to destroy this man’s career and ban him for life, and shame on the NFL for not acting on this immediately!... that was the take every single liberal took on the subject.

But these are liberals who were doing the talking, and as I’ve pointed out many times, that means they make extremist snap judgments, which they immediately use as a way to smugly claim moral superiority and then judge conservatives harshly for not being as “enlightened” as they are. But they won’t stick to these extremist positions. To the contrary, they will reverse their position as the “fairness” of the situation shifts until they are actually taking the exact opposite position they originally took... though they will still wallow in their claims of moral superiority for taking the extremist position. Thus, when the situation is the powerful Rice versus a helpless woman, it is ok to punish Rice harshly because she is the victim. But once it becomes the powerful NFL versus the helpless Rice, then Rice becomes the victim and they see it as unfair to let the NFL harm him.

In this instance, it took a few days for the first liberal to break ranks. This liberal realized that by suspending Rice without a hearing, the NFL was harming the career of a young black man in violation of the union contract the NFL has with its players... and that’s just wrong. With a handful of additional players soon finding themselves suspended as well (this time without videos to bring out visceral emotions), the cabal of liberal sportswriters soon began to fret about the players’ rights and how the evil NFL was trampling all over them. Bad NFL! Why would you do such a thing?

Not only did these sportswriters attack the NFL for acting before all the evidence was in, but they wanted the NFL to wait to do anything until after the criminal trials were done. Moreover, they decided that banning a player for life was just too harsh. Why would the NFL ever think this was ok? In fact, not only was banning too much, but suspending the player with pay was considered too harsh according to these liberals. Yep. And they smugly proclaimed that they were the defenders of civil rights.

So that’s where things shook out. These liberal sportswriters claimed moral superiority because they took the principled position that someone accused of domestic abuse must be immediately terminated and shunned from society. Then they flipped that around when the NFL punished Rice and they claimed moral superiority for protecting the rights of Rice... the same rights they demanded to have stripped. Talk about ironic! And the whole time, they accused anyone who didn't agree with them of being evil. Amazing.

And now it gets worse.

Among the smuggest of these liberals was Peter King of Sports Illustrated. This guy is an obnoxious, brainless, groupthink-bound liberal who thrives on liberal smugness, all the while imagining that he is a moderate and that everyone except those crazy right-wingers must naturally agree with him. King went through the exact process outlined above, from demanding immediate execution without trial all the way to blasting the NFL for being too harsh. Now he’s done this...

King is one of the few voters for the Pro Football Hall of Fame. And Darren Sharper is up for consideration this year for entry into the Hall. Who is Darren Sharper? Sharper is a defense back for the New Orleans Saints who arguably belongs in the Hall for what he did on the field. But there is another side to Sharper too. See, Sharper has been charged with drugging and raping three women in Los Angeles, two women in New Orleans and one woman in Arizona. Yep. He stands accused of drugging and raping six women!

Naturally, King is outraged by this and wants to keep him out of the Hall of Fame, right? I mean, if just the allegation of domestic abuse is enough to ban someone for life from the NFL without even waiting to see if the allegations are true and despite the pleas of the victim not to punish the player, then surely six separate rape allegations in three different states is enough to avoid giving a player the discretionary honor of being elected to the Hall of Fame, right?


King thinks the Hall of Fame voters need to ignore the rape allegations. Here is his reasoning:
I mentioned in this column last week that former Green Bay and New Orleans safety Darren Sharper would be eligible for the Pro Football Hall of Fame for the first time in 2016. . .

Sharper stands accused of serial sexual assault in California, Arizona and Louisiana, in some cases by using drugs on the women he attacked.

So some media people, and quite a few fans, picked up on my note, and the reaction was intense: How can you consider a man sitting in jail, accused of drugging multiple women and raping them, for the Pro Football Hall of Fame?

I understand the emotion involved in a case like this. The crimes are deplorable and reprehensible, and if true, Sharper should be imprisoned for a very long time. [BUT]

To clarify the way the Pro Football Hall of Fame works, we have a bylaw that says we can consider only football-related factors in determining a candidate’s worthiness for election....

Maybe you would say: If a candidate is convicted of a felony, he cannot get into the Hall of Fame. Leaving the scene of an accident is a felony. Arson is a felony. Selling drugs is a felony. Animal cruelty is a felony. Should those crimes be enough to automatically eliminate a candidate?

Maybe you would say: Don’t complicate things! It’s obvious that a very serious crime, such as murder or rape, should bar a candidate from the Hall. Obvious to whom? There are 46 voters for the Hall of Fame. Do you want to leave it up to the conscience of each individual voter as to what constitutes a crime serious enough to ban a person from the Hall?

I don’t. The voters for the Hall of Fame should consider what a player did on the field, and the influences of a coach on the game and how many games he won, and the contributions that other figures have made to the sport.

Beyond that, the slope is far too slippery.
Did you see that? Some voters might think rape or murder is a serious enough crime to consider, but King sees that as too dangerous of a slippery slope. Hence, he argues that the voters need to do what the bylaws say and ignore these rapes. Isn’t it funny how he took such a harsh position (ban a player for life and end his economic career) because of a single punch, which the victim doesn’t even want punished, but when it comes to something far less live-affecting (being elected into an honor society), he argues that we should overlook serial rapes. Un... f*cking... believable.

The hypocrisy of this is stunning.

Moreover, keep in mind that the left loves to accuse the right of condoning rape. Outside of a couple of religious zealots, however, no one on the right has ever condoned a rape that I am aware of. Yet, here is smug liberal King doing just that: “Ignore the six rapes because he deserves this award!”

Welcome to the mind of liberals.



Rustbelt said...

And here's Mr. King's next pick for the Hall of Fame: former running back David Meggett.
New York fans probably remember him for his role in NYC's victory over Buffalo in Super Bowl XXV. I was too young at the time and remember Meggett mainly for the Nintendo game, Tecmo Super Bowl. The draw play to Meggett out of the shotgun was almost always a guaranteed 20, 25 yards. Now, the former Giant is now serving 20, 25 years in a South Carolina prison for rape.

Here's an article that covers the entire gruesome affair. LINK Note, this is a very long one. You'll need to set aside plenty of extra time to finish it.

I don't know about you, Andrew, but after reading how hypocrite King defends a creep like Sharper, I'd like to see his op-ed in defense of Meggett. (I'm betting both that it would be a doozy and that, given the opportunity, King would probably do it.)

Anthony said...

Innocent until proven guilty is the American legal standard but it isn't the standard of the American public and needn't be the standard of private entities who need to worry about public opinion (pretty much all of them).

Like I've said before, I think the Rice punishment was rapid and strong because Rice was caught on camera knocking out his then girlfriend and dragging her around and that disturbing video was on Youtube (which everyone has access to).

The public's reaction to testimony can be colored by a range of factors (in such cases one is choosing who to believe) but video is unambiguous. As I predicted in a prior NFL thread (I couldn't find it, but I remember more or less what I said) cutting Rice was a smart move by the NFL. It satisfied the public and kept ratings from being harmed.

Guys not caught on camera, no matter they are accused of, can probably expect a milder reaction and a slower process.

Sharper hasn't been convicted of anything yet, but like with Bill Cosby, there are so many allegations he's almost certainly guilty of something. If the Hall of Fame voters are smart (King clearly isn't) they will spare themselves a headache and steer clear of him.

Eventually the looser standard is going to hurt some guy who is later vindicated by events, but in matters of sex crimes, it is safer from a PR standpoint to err on the side of harshness. If the NFL needs to write an apology check to some guy down the line, they can do that with the loose change in their pockets.

Robert L. Hedd said...

I wonder what Mr. King, and all the libruls, think of one Orenthal James Simpson in the Hall of Fame? Oh, it's probably okay since all his notoriety took place after he was elected into the Hall....right?

Either you vote them in for their football skills on the field, and leave out their off-field antics, or you make the Hall a politically correct award. Anti-semetic?! Not getting in. Demands smaller government?! Not getting in. Global warming denier?! Not getting in. Climate change warrior?! Right this way Sir.

We're done for.......


Tennessee Jed said...

what is the old saying "if the facts aren't on your side, argue the law ...etc." Most people are capable of a full measure of hypocricy when pushed, but liberals have developed it as an art form. A corporate CEO or Oregon Congressman are hounded from their jobs for sexual harrassment, but a stained blue dress was a call to burn the victim. I don't know about Cosby. People may jump in looking (hoping) for some notoriety and/or settlement. But, I think the wagons would have been circled for Cos if only he hadn't admonished people to take some sel-responsibility. It truly is more about the p.r. battle and whose ox is being gored. Ty Cobb was a bastard who quite possibly murdered somebody. You can make a good argument either way about hall of fame, but you need to apply consistently.Those who argue bad acts should disqualify eligibility point to the message to kids. Permitting voters to pick and choose allows them to be hypocrites based on who they like or don't like.

AndrewPrice said...

Rustbelt, My guess is that King would happily overlook that unless rape was in the news and he wanted to show how much he was part of the herd... of if a video came out showing Sharper doing something nasty. The key with influencing liberals is groupthink or emotional responses. Get them thinking that everyone holds a particular opinion and they will hold it too. OR get them emotional and they will ignore whatever "logic" they normally apply just too satisfy their need to emote.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, I agree, but that isn't the issue to me. The issue to me is that liberals like King blast conservatives for condoning rape and not caring about domestic violence because we won't join them in their extremist knee-jerk opinion (BAN RICE FOR LIFE!) which opinion they reverse almost immediately and then blast us for being uncaring about the problems their own policy causes.

Moreover, here you have King saying we should overlook rape... something the left routinely attacks the right for doing, even though we don't, and yet here he is doing it. Imagine if Bush has said, "You should ignore what Sharper did and just judge him on his on field career." How do you think King would have responded in the whirlwind of hate the left would have poured out at that point.

AndrewPrice said...

Bob, This is typical for liberals -- judging everyone individually based on inconsistent criteria. Today rape is to be overlooked, tomorrow it's the death sentence, then it's minor enough to overlook again.

Personally, I'm a firm believer in sticking to your rules. If your rules say consider only X, then you should consider only X. But in this case, I also think the Hall should maintain a list of crimes that exclude you -- murder, rape, pedophilia.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I'm a firm believer in consistency, but as you know, liberals are not. That said, if I was running the Hall, I would definitely create a blacklist category for certain crimes just to keep the controversies down. That way you don't need to answer questions about murders and rapists being in the Hall.

BevfromNYC said...

Interesting. There is a compromise here though. They can be honored for their abilities and accomplishments on the field, BUT...set up a special room. They could call it the "Orenthal James Simpson Hall Of Fame BUT" Room. It could tell of their great accomplishments, but spell out their various crimes in full as a lesson that just because you have a great talent, it does not mean you are above the law - include a jail cell and their mug shots. It can be balanced by a room full of all the great players and their great charitable civic contributions and accomplishments.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, LOL! The "BUT" Room! I love it!

Actually, you're onto something. That would be a good way to let the Hall acknowledge what they did on the field while still sending an interesting lesson about off-field behavior. It would also make it easier to excise guys like Simpson without fully removing them from the Hall.

In any event though, I find it amazing that Mr. PC King can overlook rape so easily.

BevfromNYC said...

Sadly, Amdrew, I am not so amazed at the liberal about-face when it comes to rape and sexual harassment. They are quite tolerant of their own when they want to be. [See: Bill Clinton] I chalk it up to having a very high bar that they set for their own moral and ethical transgressions including a very short time period, they hold just the opposite for their opposition. What transgression a conservative may have committed 30 years ago is up for condemnation while what their liberal own did 3 years ago is of no consequence now.

Koshcat said...

I think the harder issues are those who were acquitted. OJ is a great example. Most people think he did it and according to some: "Now I am not saying he should have killed her...but I understand." -Chris Rock (probably one of his funniest stand up bits). When someone like him has been acquitted of a crime, and I'm not counting the civil case, should it be considered or ignored when looking at the Hall? That is were there is a slippery slope.

Koshcat said...

Oh, man I had a really funny but inappropriate comment cut off by blogger.

BevfromNYC said...

Koshcat - and that OJ also left us with the scourge of humanity...the Kardashian clan - for THAT alone he should be in jail.

Kit said...

What does OJ have to do with the Kardashians?

Kit said...

I should note this is all I know of the Khardashians.
—They come from a rich Middle Eastern-ish family.
—Kim K. became famous after a sex tape.
—She has a sister whose name I cannot remember and who may also have had a sex tape but I'm not really sure.
—They had a "reality" TV show on MTV or VHS or something like that.
—Kim divorced her husband (whose name I also don't know). Or he divorced her. I don't know.
—Kim Kardashian recently did a photoshoot where she was drinking wine and showing the top of her behind. I know that because it got a lot of play by people criticizing the controversy over that scientist's shirt.
—They got massacred on South Park by someone who read Butters book.

BevfromNYC said...

Kit - Robert Kardashian (father of the non-Jenner Kardashians Kourtney, Kim and maybe Kloe) was, famously, one of OJ's defense attorneys...

Post a Comment