Fairness is a concept with no concrete definition. Kind of like art ... or pornography. I don't know what fair is ... but I know it when I see it. Or, more often, I don't know what UNfair is, but I know it when I see it.
Think back to the first time you told your parents that something wasn't fair. Most likely, they informed you - in a comforting way - that sometimes life isn't fair.
Such is the case in three separate sports-related stories in the news this week. I say sports-related because they all involve athletes ... but none of them are really sports stories.
First, there was the sentencing of O.J. Simpson to a 9-to-33-year prison term for armed robbery. Locally, we recall (although maybe in shame) that O.J. was a phenomenal running back for the Buffalo Bills, reaching the incredible 2,000 yard single-season mark. But to the rest of the world, O.J. has been - at least for the last 13 years - as the guy that got away with killing his wife.
Simpson, of course, was acquitted of murder charges for the deaths of his former wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman. Many people seemed to think that he "worked the system" and "got away with murder." Literally.
And many legal experts today are saying that Simpson's potential 33-year stint in the pokey has a lot more to do with the perception that he still needed to do time for the earlier crime than it had to do with the merits of the current case ... in which he and some buddies stormed into a hotel and kept people hostage while trying to "reclaim" some things that belonged to him.
Some will say that for karma's sake, the lengthy sentence was fair. I disagree.
Then there's NHL loudmouth Sean Avery, who got a six game suspension for making a derogatory remark about an ex-girlfriend. Specifically, Avery said he didn't know why it was now common practice for fellow NHLers to date his "sloppy seconds."
For those who didn't get the reference immediately, Avery's ex-girlfriend Elisha Cuthbert is now dating Calgary defenseman Dion Phaneuf. And for those who don't understand the meaning of the term ... click here. (warning ... content is inappropriate)
So ... let me see if I can get this straight. With all the cheap shots and stupid stuff that Sean Avery has done on-ice in his seven-year career, he's never been suspended for a single game. But using the term "sloppy seconds" about a girl who was famous for a couple of underwear shots in "The Girl Next Door" and "Old School" nets his six games?
I don't get it.
The NHL, of course, says they're trying to protect their reputation. Apparently the NHL hasn't gotten the memo, but outside of a few select cities in the US and (mostly) Canada, the NHL doesn't have a reputation.
The league cited his ''pattern of unacceptable and anti-social behavior," as a contributing factor into his suspension and the length of it.
In other words, "we're suspending you six games cause you're just not a nice guy."
Fair? Maybe for karma's sake ... but not based on the issue at hand.
And lastly, there's the issue of the NFL's Plaxico Burress who stands to do up to 3 1/2 years in jail because he shot himself in the leg in a NYC nightclub.
According to police accounts, a gun that Burress had tucked into the waistband of his sweat pants slipped down his leg and went off by accident, shooting him in the leg.
The problem for Burress isn't the fact that he was wearing sweatpants in public - although I think that should be a crime. The problem is that he didn't have a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
All accounts of the story indicate that the prosecution is leaning towards throwing the book at Burress becuase he's a high-profile athlete. In other words, he's going to pay for the past indiscretions of other athletes.
Now, I won't get into the fact that I think the law itself is stupid (the 2nd amendment doesn't say that you have a right to apply for a permit to bear arms), but needless to say, I do.
For me it comes down to fairness, yet again. There's no way you can convince me that a three and a half year prison sentence for shooting yourself in the leg is fair. But once again, karma comes into play, and many people will think it fair.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Why I don't believe the hype
A certain mistrust of government is natural, healthy even. In my line of work, it's actually a necessity to be skeptical.
But I - like many other Americans - have moved beyond the level of skeptic. I - like many other Americans - have gotten to the point where I don't believe anything politicians say. Anything.
If congress says something is black, I have a good reason to believe that it's white. If the president says something is up, I can reasonably assume that it's down.
And the reason for this general mistrust ... the move from being a skeptic to a cynic ... is that the level of blatant lies to come out of Washington these past several years exceeds anything that could be considered reasonable.
Fact of the matter is that government works for us. It is a tool of the people by which to perform certain functions that people can't be expected to perform on their own. Because government is supposedly "of the people, for the people, and by the people," many American citizens expect to be told the truth by their government.
And while it's not popular with many folks, I understand why government lies to us sometimes. Occasionally, it's just easier to lie when setting out to achieve a common goal. Sometimes the truth creates bedlam, a state in which working towards any accomplishment becomes almost impossible.
An example: At the scene of a crime, a police officer will tell you "there's nothing to see here," in an effort to clear the scene, making their job of solving the crime easier. Yeah, it's a lie, but it expedites matters.
Unfortunately, many of the lies we've been told over the past few years haven't been this garden variety white lie. They've been dirty black lies, not told for the sake of making our lives better or easier, but told for nefarious reasons, some of which we won't know for decades ... if we ever know at all.
Complicating matters even further is the fact that a certain percentage of the population wants to believe the lie ... and even helps to propagate it. This could be that they just want to believe their government ... or maybe it's partisan ... or maybe they have something to gain from the lie.
Many have even gone so far as to explain away the lies by method of defining lies to the n'th degree. I hear often, "it's not a lie unless you know it to be untrue."
This strategy is often used to defend the "weapons of mass destruction" claim in Iraq, the principle reason we invaded a sovereign nation. It turned out to be untrue, but as long as we didn't KNOW it was untrue to begin with, then it's not a lie, they say.
The problem with this definition, is that a statement such as, "There's a million dollars worth of gold buried at the foot of the Statue of Liberty," wouldn't be construed a lie ... even though I just made it up. It COULD be true. I don't know that it's NOT true. Therefore, it's not a lie by their definition.
But to me, it's a lie. I want to believe that there's a million dollars worth of gold buried at the Statue of Liberty, but as much as I want to believe it, that doesn't make it true. It's still a lie.
I've gotten so used to hearing lies from the government, whether it's about Social Security going bankrupt ... or being greeted as liberators ... or any other number of things, that I just don't believe anything they say.
So when I started hearing last week that the federal government felt that if we didn't pony up $700 billion for some invesment bankers, the whole country could collapse economically, my first thought surely wasn't, "well if the government says it's true, it must be." Instead my first thought was, "if those bastards think they're going to rob from the poor to give to the rich, they've got another thing coming."
Look, I'm no economist. But as far as know, neither is President Bush, Vice President Cheney, or any member of Congress, for that matter. Henry Paulson is, of course. He's also a former Wall Street CEO. This bailout would make a lot of his friends very happy (and lots of money). Just like the war on Iraq made Vice President Dick Cheney's buddies at Halliburton very happy (and lots of money) and the same worldwide boondoggle has made George W Bush's friends in the oil industry very happy (and lots of money).
A friend of mine often tells me, when things don't make sense, look at who's making cents.
In the case of this "bailout," the people making cents would be investment bankers ... many of whom are friends of the political system.
It's reverse Robin Hood and they're hoping that if they lie to you and tell you that it's in your own good, you'll not only believe it ... but demand it.
Don't believe the hype.
But I - like many other Americans - have moved beyond the level of skeptic. I - like many other Americans - have gotten to the point where I don't believe anything politicians say. Anything.
If congress says something is black, I have a good reason to believe that it's white. If the president says something is up, I can reasonably assume that it's down.
And the reason for this general mistrust ... the move from being a skeptic to a cynic ... is that the level of blatant lies to come out of Washington these past several years exceeds anything that could be considered reasonable.
Fact of the matter is that government works for us. It is a tool of the people by which to perform certain functions that people can't be expected to perform on their own. Because government is supposedly "of the people, for the people, and by the people," many American citizens expect to be told the truth by their government.
And while it's not popular with many folks, I understand why government lies to us sometimes. Occasionally, it's just easier to lie when setting out to achieve a common goal. Sometimes the truth creates bedlam, a state in which working towards any accomplishment becomes almost impossible.
An example: At the scene of a crime, a police officer will tell you "there's nothing to see here," in an effort to clear the scene, making their job of solving the crime easier. Yeah, it's a lie, but it expedites matters.
Unfortunately, many of the lies we've been told over the past few years haven't been this garden variety white lie. They've been dirty black lies, not told for the sake of making our lives better or easier, but told for nefarious reasons, some of which we won't know for decades ... if we ever know at all.
Complicating matters even further is the fact that a certain percentage of the population wants to believe the lie ... and even helps to propagate it. This could be that they just want to believe their government ... or maybe it's partisan ... or maybe they have something to gain from the lie.
Many have even gone so far as to explain away the lies by method of defining lies to the n'th degree. I hear often, "it's not a lie unless you know it to be untrue."
This strategy is often used to defend the "weapons of mass destruction" claim in Iraq, the principle reason we invaded a sovereign nation. It turned out to be untrue, but as long as we didn't KNOW it was untrue to begin with, then it's not a lie, they say.
The problem with this definition, is that a statement such as, "There's a million dollars worth of gold buried at the foot of the Statue of Liberty," wouldn't be construed a lie ... even though I just made it up. It COULD be true. I don't know that it's NOT true. Therefore, it's not a lie by their definition.
But to me, it's a lie. I want to believe that there's a million dollars worth of gold buried at the Statue of Liberty, but as much as I want to believe it, that doesn't make it true. It's still a lie.
I've gotten so used to hearing lies from the government, whether it's about Social Security going bankrupt ... or being greeted as liberators ... or any other number of things, that I just don't believe anything they say.
So when I started hearing last week that the federal government felt that if we didn't pony up $700 billion for some invesment bankers, the whole country could collapse economically, my first thought surely wasn't, "well if the government says it's true, it must be." Instead my first thought was, "if those bastards think they're going to rob from the poor to give to the rich, they've got another thing coming."
Look, I'm no economist. But as far as know, neither is President Bush, Vice President Cheney, or any member of Congress, for that matter. Henry Paulson is, of course. He's also a former Wall Street CEO. This bailout would make a lot of his friends very happy (and lots of money). Just like the war on Iraq made Vice President Dick Cheney's buddies at Halliburton very happy (and lots of money) and the same worldwide boondoggle has made George W Bush's friends in the oil industry very happy (and lots of money).
A friend of mine often tells me, when things don't make sense, look at who's making cents.
In the case of this "bailout," the people making cents would be investment bankers ... many of whom are friends of the political system.
It's reverse Robin Hood and they're hoping that if they lie to you and tell you that it's in your own good, you'll not only believe it ... but demand it.
Don't believe the hype.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)