He doesn’t deserve to be mentioned. He doesn’t deserve to be known. He doesn’t deserve to be remembered in any way. Not in any way whatsoever. Not in any way, shape, or form. We don’t care who he is, or what he thinks. Even writing the word “he” in place of his name troubles me deeply.
Accordingly, throughout the remainder of this essay, I shall refer to him only as the “Boston Marathon Bomber.”
Earlier tonight, a player for the NFL’s Seattle Seahawks was cornered by one of those inane sideline reporters just seconds after making an outstanding defensive play, which enabled his team to go to the Super Bowl.
In the heat of that thrilling moment — undoubtedly the highlight of the young player’s career — he made a number of “in-your-face” comments directed at an opposing football player and boldly announced to everyone watching, “I’m the best corner(back) in the game.”
No doubt, this was a jaw-dropping television moment, that caught the interviewer completely off guard. The player was clearly on an emotional high; then suddenly, a microphone was stuck in his face and he was asked about his feelings. Let’s face it, that doesn’t happen to defensive backs very often. Quarterbacks? Yes. Head Coaches? Yes. Cornerbacks? No.
Moreover, who knows what choice words that were said on the field during the heat of competition just moments before the interview that triggered his fury? Apparently, the bad blood between the two players started months ago. We clearly witnessed something happen, just moments beforehand. Did you happen to catch that? The opposing player (San Francisco 49ers wide receiver Michael Crabtree), in what appeared to be a terrible display of sportsmanship, essentially bitch slapped the defensive player who was then interviewed just a short time later. Supposedly, everyone expected him to be gracious under these highly emotional circumstances.
I was struck, but not entirely surprised by the fallout, which included predictable outrage directed against this player named Richard Sherman. Comments at Twitter and Facebook were both immediate and scathing. Sherman was instantly the villain.
What was most intriguing perhaps was the word that kept popping up in the comments over and over again. That word was “thug.”
This punishment was handed down yesterday in a federal court in Alexandria, VA. Let’s hope free speech advocates will recognize the serious implications of this outrageous verdict and will fight to appeal stop charges of this nature from ever being filed in the first place in future cases.
Here’s the problem.
Lie detector tests aren’t just inconclusive, they’re practically useless. A significant segment of the scientific community considers polygraphs to be pseudoscience (CLICK HERE). In fact, “polygraphy has little evidence to support its use. Despite claims of 90 percent validity by polygraph advocates, the National Research Council has found no evidence of effectiveness.” (CLICK HERE) Polygraph test results are inadmissible as evidence in most courts of law. Why? Because lie detectors are junk science. Read more: CLICK HERE
Opponents of changing marriage laws in the United States claim that extending these rights to same-sex couples “threaten the institution of marriage.”
But evidence shows that gays are hardly matrimony’s primary menace. In fact, it’s the straights, the so-called traditionalists who have evaded, mocked, and in increasing numbers abandoned the most sacred marriage vow, “I wed thee….’til death do us part.”
Let’s begin by highlighting what we already know. About half of all marriages end in divorce. Of those who do tie the knot, the averge person gets married about 1.8 imes during his or her lifetime. Futhermore, more than half the adult U.S population is curently single, the lowest percentage in history. So, if straight marraiges can’t even muster the formation of a simple majority — either by overall number or by the number of unions which ultimately prove successful — then how can this camp speak of protecting traditional marriage with any sense of credibility?
Fact is, we’re blowing it big time, and we need help. If marriage is to be protected and emboldened as one of the keys to creating a more stable society, then we ought to be doing a lot more to foster ways that marriage will appeal to increasing numbers of people now disenfranchised or excluded outright by “tradtition.” This mandates thinking about the institution of marraige in ways we hadn’t considered before, that might have been unthinkable just a generation ago.