Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
TheOtherBob
Published Letters: 129 Editor's Choice: 1
It's not really celebration that's the problem -- instead, they're trying to stop two things: taunting and what you might call "grandstanding." Do you remember the Icky Shuffle, or the Dirty Bird? Neither of these were celebrations, exactly -- the players were not overcome with emotion, they just wanted attention.
I don't want college players grandstanding or taunting -- don't want them pretending to light the ball on fire and fan the flames, whipping out a Sharpie and signing it, inventing a new dance, etc. A well-written rule that targets that behavior, combined with a little common sense in enforcement, would be 100% fine.
But the NCAA is instead using a poorly-written rule as a blunt instrument. And, sure, that blunt instrument prevents a player from doing a hoochie dance with the football and a nearby cheerleader. But it also would penalize a player so overcome with scoring his first touchdown that he runs over to his mother in the stands without first returning the ball to the officials. And that's...kinda dumb.
As it stands, we must penalize both someone doing the Dirty Bird and someone who just tosses away the ball so that they can jump into their teammates' arms, because both actions technically fall within the "rule" against celebration. But, come on, use some discretion.
I'm a conservative, and this stuff from the Republicans is just offensive. The conservative worldview is based on the idea that the rule of law is more important than the rule of men -- that no man is above the law. (See, e.g., Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France, where he lamented the movement from a society ruled by laws to a society ruled by the fleeting ideas and popularities of petty tyrants.)
Republicans lately have rejected the rule of law, in service of instead prolonging their own rule. Their belief seems to be that Republicans are inherently "right" in some unspecified way, and that therefore all impediments must be removed, so that they are allowed to freely rule -- even if it means breaking or ignoring the law.
Take the (alleged) Palin statement when she was mayor and redecorated her office for $50k. According to one witness, she said that she could do whatever she wanted until a court told her to stop, even if her actions were in contradiction of the law. Conservatives say that every man has a duty to follow the law. Palin would apparently say that she has a right to do whatever she wants until a more powerful force makes her stop. That is "rule of man" in a nutshell.
So this is nothing new. Refusing a subpoena just because they don't agree with it just reinforces the sad reality that Republicans are "conservative" only when it serves them.
I totally agree. It sounds like he's starting to resent the fact that he has to support his parents in this way. But he can't just come out and say that because they, you know, raised him and all.
So he projects the resentment he feels onto an issue that feels more...worthy of it, I guess. By resenting them over the Republicanism issue (which goes to the core of who he is) rather than the money issue (which is just money), the resentment feels more justified and proper.
But there's no need for that. It's ok to resent being used in this way. It's ok to resent your parents, particularly if you feel like they (or your siblings) are taking advantage. And it's ok to deal with that directly, even if it hurts the relationship at first. I'd argue that it's better, even -- resentment is poison, and will just eat at your feelings over time. Better to have it out, get it over with, and heal.
and why can't I stop humming "Don't Cry For Me Argentina"...?
Though, to point out the obvious, Palin doesn't "differ" on the right to privacy. She just had no idea that Roe v. Wade involved the question of such a right. All she knew about the case was "Abortion! Hissssss..." I doubt she's ever even read it.
("Though she probably read about it in the newspaper." "Which newspaper, Johnny?" "All of them!")
So does she agree with Griswold? Nah. If she's heard of that case, she probably thinks it's about National Lampoon's Vacation.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
