Say Anything Blog

Expect?  Yes.  Demand? No.  Same for school teachers, firemen, police officers, elected officials and just about everyone else.  Enforcement?  Very difficult, especially with the liberal press and “diversity” claims.  “They just can’t help themselves, they were brought up that way, etc”  Since 1962 the public schools have bent over backwards excusing poor behavior, rapes, shakedowns, profanity, unacceptable personal responsibility, theft, you name it.  Pitiful.  All in the name of what?  Political correctness?  Dumbing down?  Crass behavior.

Communism is evil

I can’t agree with you, pil.  Althetes and other notables are humans just like us subject to the same foibles and temptations, and also the same Constitutional rights.  In addition they, particulsr athletes, are judged by news media, outside the courtroom, for everything they do or say.  Why should we expect perfection in them when we don’t expect the same in others?

As far as hero worship is concerned, anyone can qualify for that.  For instance, there is poster here whose hero is Cindy Sheehan, and Cindy’s hero is Venezuelas Chavez.  Go figure…

One of the most important talents for success in politics is the ability to make utter nonsense sound not only plausible but inspiring. Barack Obama has that talent. We will be lucky if we escape the catastrophes into which other countries have been led by leaders with that same charismatic talent.
-Thomas Sowell

docdave,

Nobody’s expecting these athletes to not be human. But they put themselves in a very transparent fishbowl when they begin a pro career. And if I were the one signing the paycheck I would expect - demand - that they purport themselves in a manner that reflected well on my organization.

Nobody’s expecting perfection, either. Mistakes can be made, life goes on. That’s one thing. Deliberate criminal behavior is another.

A point I made in my post is this - the average lifespan a a pro career is short. Wanna be thug? wait ubtil you’re not wearing the uniform of your employer, big boy.

The future ain’t what it used to be…..

(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

My only problem with this is the description:

...the latest example of a spoiled athlete getting caught in thuggish, illegal behavior.

Whatever you think of dogfighting, it isn’t “thuggish” in the way 99% of people think of “thugs”.  He wasn’t hurting any other person, wasn’t threatening to hurt anyone, etc.  Also, whatever you think of dogfighting, it is strangely part of southern black culture for right or wrong, and Vick was participating in it before he was any kind of celebrity, and wasn’t getting paid a dime. 

You can hate the guy all you want, proclaim him sick and disgusting and a rotten human being.  But none of that has anything to do with him being a rich athlete.  Some tiny fraction of his money was used to bankroll a house where they raised dogs for fighting, but there are plenty of those already and it doesn’t take a millionaire athlete for one to exist. 

Certainly the NFL has the right to set standards for conduct and Vick clearly broke the rules for conduct and it will cost him. 

The mistake made here is making it out as if his status as a rich athlete allowed him to be arrogant and to then commit this crime and I don’t believe that to be the case at all.  He would have been involved in dogfighting whether he was an athlete or not. 

The world of dogfighting will flourish long after Vick is done serving his time and the only people that will shy away from it will be rich athletes.  And that demographic makes of a tiny fraction of the population at large AND likely a tiny fraction of dogfighting participants.

Vick would be best to just keep his mouth shut and let the public forget this whole sordid affair.  And they will, no doubt.

docdave,

I agree with Pilgrim, not because athletes are high-profile people, but because any employer has the right to set a standard of behavior for their employees.  Most government jobs and many private companies (though decreasingly) have a moral turpitude clause in their employment contracts.

And that is the way it should be.  Employers should have the right to decide what image their employees present to the public.  And when an employee’s behavior brings public scrutiny, their employer should have the option to sever the relationship with that employee.  In the same way, employees can quit if they think their employer reflects badly on them.  That is what makes it a free market.

Should professional athletes be held to a very high standard?  I think so, but each league will have to decide that.  If the NBA (or any other professional sports league) wants to allow their players to flaunt their sexual activities and talk about having baby-mommies in every city then that is their right.  It is my right as a possible patron to stop watching NBA games because it offends my sensibilities.  If enough people agree with me, the NBA will have to enforce some standards off the court to keep making money.  If I’m a lone voice, then I stop watching the NBA and the NBA still makes money, just not mine.

deadrody,

You’re presenting a chicken-and-egg argument. In this case it doesn’t matter. he’s still a spoiled athlete who got caught in an illegal, ugly situation. Whether he was involved prior to the NFL doesn’t matter.

The future ain’t what it used to be…..

(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Pilgrim I stand in awe of you, sometimes simply because you are the most wonderful man in the world. I always enjoy reading your opinions and comments, I believe God gave you more than your share of intelligence. However, I am amazed that you made no direct mention of athletes who use steroids, this was a great post to squeeze it into. I’ve waited 5 months to read your own personal views on how their abuse affects others, as you have witnessed this first hand I would think you’d have much to say on the topic. LOL…. if for no other reason, just to bring your Lady a smile along the trail as we journey together on this pilgrimage. XXXXXOOOOO

Althetes and other notables are humans

Well .. that statement may be stretching for desperate reality but I’ll let it slide.
I do agree with everyone that says that these public notables need to respect their positions and if they can’t then they don’t deserve our respect.

Employers should have the right to decide what image their employees present to the public.

Are you saying that ones employer control over you extends beyond yo8ur workinbg hours?  If so, I’m amazed that you would not have a problem with that.  Taken to the extreme (and this could happen without any limitations) your employer could determine with who you associate, where you live, which candidates get your vote, etc; effectively runnig your life.  Tslk sbout your Orwellian/totalitarian society.

All of you seem to believe that athletes have to live to a differnt standard than the rest of us.  That would have not set with many of the athletes of yesterday who were noted for partying the evenings before games.  By the standards of today, people like Babe Ruth and others would not have set baseball recorda because they would have been suspended for their rowdy behavior.

One of the most important talents for success in politics is the ability to make utter nonsense sound not only plausible but inspiring. Barack Obama has that talent. We will be lucky if we escape the catastrophes into which other countries have been led by leaders with that same charismatic talent.
-Thomas Sowell

Actually, docdave, since you and I live in Texas and Texas is a “work at will” state, yes employers here have ability to fire you for anything (or for no given reason at all).  What limits them is the legal methods they have to discover whatever it is they want to know about you after hours.  So, in practice, it would be impossible for an employer to fire you because you voted for a particular candidate.  On the other hand, they could fire you because you publicly supported a candidate (depending on the state, since some states have laws protected political affiliation as a protected class).

Do I support an employers firing people for political affiliation?  Most certainly not.  Do I support their ability to do so?  Emphatically yes.  I also support the right of people to not patronize such companies and for former employees to publicly expose such companies.  Freedom of association works in all directions.

There was a story, posted here I believe, of a man who was fired from one of the big beer companies because he was caught drinking the competitor’s beer at a bar where he normally delivered his employer’s product.  If I remember correctly, the man was in the bar on his own time and he was not in uniform.  I completely supported his employer’s decision since the man was clearly effecting the reputation of his company.

The same goes true for wayward athletes.  As more and more act like they’re above any law or social norm, more and more people will (hopefully) be turned off of that sport.  Their actions defame their league and causes financial loss (again hopefully, though it hasn’t really proven to be the case so far).  The leagues absolutely have a right to disassociate themselves from anyone who puts them in a bad light.  Of course the patrons determine the level of decorum required and as long as they continue patronizing those sports whose players off-hours behavior makes Dennis Rodman look normal we’ll continue to see a downward spiral.

docdave ... You think a teacher of our children should be able to do anything they want outside of their classroom? I for one prefer anyone that possesses any influence in society to conduct themselves in a respectable mannerism.

In truth, kb and anna, an employer cannot fire an employee without cause and the cause cannot be based on a single non-criminal incident but on a carefully documented series of non-compliant events.  I know this from my own personal experienc.  In unionized employment it’s almost impossible to fire anyone regardless of their numerous missteps.  I believe that teachers fall in that category, anna.

None of this applies to professional sport organizations who have their own set of rules which somehow slip under the general societal radar.  I suspect that players have to sign waivers in their employment contracts.

kb, I believe that the person in your beer drinking example has a strong legal case against his employer if he wanted to pursue it.  However, there may be other extenuating circomstances that lead to his firing, like drink on the job.

One of the most important talents for success in politics is the ability to make utter nonsense sound not only plausible but inspiring. Barack Obama has that talent. We will be lucky if we escape the catastrophes into which other countries have been led by leaders with that same charismatic talent.
-Thomas Sowell

docdave,

You could not be more wrong when it comes to Texas (and many other states).  Texas is a work-at-will (employment-at-will) state.  That means that, with the exception of any contractual agreement, either party can terminate employment at any time without cause.  Unions would fall under the contractual agreement part of that statement.  Of course, all employers have to abide by the anti-discrimination laws which vary from state to state, but in a state like Texas the onus is on the aggrieved party to prove illegal discrimination.

Of course, many companies are rightfully frightened of discrimination lawsuits, because it drags their reputation through the mud.  That is why you find paranoid “we must document misbehavior for a long, long time before we fire anyone” policies even in a state as permissive as Texas.  That’s also why you see a lot of employers ask someone to resign instead of being fired.  It doesn’t change the fact though that Texas state law (and many other states) allow an employer to terminate someone without cause.

You could not be more wrong when it comes to Texas (and many other states).  Texas is a work-at-will (employment-at-will) state. 

I’ll cede you that point, kb, however in my experince over 30+ years working in Texas, I don’t recall anyone being fired without csuse.  In fact virtually all my employers use downsizing or other ecoomic reasons to eliminate ‘dead wood’.  Save them from the hassle of potential lawsuits.

One of the most important talents for success in politics is the ability to make utter nonsense sound not only plausible but inspiring. Barack Obama has that talent. We will be lucky if we escape the catastrophes into which other countries have been led by leaders with that same charismatic talent.
-Thomas Sowell

Part of the problem is that guys like Mike always have their behavior excused. I played football at a Big Ten school many years ago. You wouldn’t believe the crap that I saw guys get away with - just because they played a game, and the way we were treated so deferentially as athletes could almost be embarrassing. Mike thought he was bulletproof and found out differently.

I totally support an employer’s right to terminate an employee based upon his/her behavior that could adversely affect their business or company reputation.

“Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”

There is absoultely nothing wrong with an employer saying “If you are convicted of a crime during the course of you employment with my organization, you then therefore will be dismissed.” That is perfectly reasonable. What is the problem in getting that message across to anyone. A ditch digger, athelete, lawyer, politician, nurse, babysitter. All should be held accountable for his or her choices. Illegal activity does not JUST HAPPEN. It is a choice, made on a personal level. Choose what is right and NO PROBLEM.

docdave - Are you saying that ones employer control over you extends beyond yo8ur workinbg hours?

Yes. They have that right. It’s their money that they’re spending. They have a right to decide how to spend their own money.

It’s amazing that this even has to be said.