I Will Not Bow To "The Shield"

The NFL has come down with the Death Penalty for the Saints.

To date, no coach in the history of the league has been suspended for even a single game. Sean Payton gets 1 year. A year!

Perfect.

I warned everyone about Goodell, a long, long time ago. So my conscience is clean.

This guy is not just not that smart, his ego is apparently the size of Montana.

It's all about HIM, and what HE has done to improve player safety, and about how HE was "lied" to, and HIM, HIM, HIM!

I don't know if Sean Payton and the Saints "lied" to the commish during this "investigation." The league just implies that they did. The 10,000 page "investigation" and report on this matter, is not yet downloadable via PDF for us to make our own conclusions. And it never will.

So if YOU just want to take this league's word on it, then go ahead.

Most writers, columnists and talking heads who cover the NFL, have done just that, applauding the penalty as "harsh" but "right."

It's like they are sitting with their legs crossed on the floor watching and clapping for the NFL's little puppet show. The real story, is that the NFL is running scared - very scared - about these concussion lawsuits. So throwing the Saints under the bus is a cheap price for some litigation insurance.

Which means, I'm just rooting for the lawsuits now.

I hope this league gets it's ASS handed to it in court, in a little Chinese takeout box.

Of course there's a reason why many supposedly "independent" media outlets/journalists/pundits/talking heads are just mindlessly applauding the draconian penalties. It doesn't pay to be against this league, and this commissioner, in any way...... ANY....

Not that the NFL could get a columnist fired, but if you cover the NFL, who wants doors closing and calls going un-returned just because you have staked out a hard position that makes the NFL look bad?

Luckily, a few smart people out there aren't just buying Goodell's punishment hook, line, and sinker.

Randy Galloway of the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram cuts to the chase....

When Goodell was finally finished, the New Orleans Saints were placed in a commissioner-induced coma for the 2012 season, and the beating was so severe recovery after even one season is certainly not guaranteed, or even expected.

Oohs and aahs were heard from a shocked yet pleased national media, and this was followed by appreciative standing O's in print.

That'll teach 'em. That'll also send the message that the NFL is no place for organized violence if it comes in the form of "bounty" incentives. Goodell stopped that stuff, huh?

The Saints, as an organization, received the toughest overall penalty in the history of the league, and the toughest in any sport since the death penalty ruling against SMU.

We can, of course, use that SMU thing as a guideline, because 25 years later, the death penalty has never been used again by the NCAA, which certainly indicates to me that any form of cheating in college football ended immediately when the ruling came down in 1987.

At least I can't recall any cheating scandals in college football, can you?

Based on Goodell's explanation, he said he was lied to by the Saints when the "bounty" investigation first began, and that his original order to end the bounties was ignored for two years.For that -- the lying, and ignoring orders -- Goodell obviously blamed Payton more than anyone else in the Saints' organization.

Again, we've only heard Goodell's side of the "lying" story, and because he's the NFL version of judge, jury and also the appellate court (appeals are accepted by the NFL, but Goodell hears the appeal of his own rulings) is it wise for anyone found guilty to speak up in protest?

REACT: Thank you, Randy. THANK YOU. That's EXACTLY it. For numbnuts who say "well, Payton hasn't disputed any of this...." just think about it. IT DOES YOU NO GOOD! Not only do you have to re-try your case in front of the same guy who just bashed your head in, it makes you look feeble and dishonest trying to explain just YOUR side of the story, when the NFL is withholding some 10,000 pages of information that might actually make your side of the dispute look a whole lot better.

And of course, the worst, most nauseating part of the whole story, is the "player safety" issue. My sweet ass it is. Dave M. in Ohio properly dissects that one.....

This Sean Peyton thing cracks me up. I'm actually fine with the severity of the penalties.

What do I care?

But it's funny how the "narrative" quickly becomes distorted. For every Jaworski or Platscke who says..."I applaud the move..it's all about player safety" I just want to rip my hair out.

No.It.Isn't.
If you were really concerned about player safety you'd drop that 18 game nonsense and mandate the newer/safer helmets for all players. You'd mandate mouthguards (the real kind proven to reduce concussions) and you'd fit the helmets properly so they can't be removed like baseball caps. I know I sound like I'm channeling Easterbrook here and that troubles even me. But that's the truth. Safest equipment available and less overall contact by way of fewer games.

That's step #1.

Now onto his real motives and the illogic of the ESPN argument...Follow me on my logic train for a moment. The NFL new about this Saints stuff at least a couple years back. Their investigation fizzled without corroboration and all parties were warned to knock it off. Am I right? Peyton, Loomis, Benson? All warned to stop this a couple of years ago. But they were warned privately so as not to give the league a black eye on the issue. If you care about player safety then you do something at THAT point in time. Not now.

Now?

These penalties are as much, if not more, about having lied to the league, ignored the league, embarrassed the league. Ignoring the issue...failing to punish it THEN automatically negates the player safety cover for this. This is the parental equivalent of overlooking shoplifting of your tween and then sentencing them to 15 years in the pen when you find them still doing it years later.

And again if this is all for PR?, fine. Who cares? But just say so then is my take. You want perjury type penalties in place? Fine? Put in place automatic year-long suspension "lying to commissioner during investigation" penalties if you want to. What I can't stand is the lack of consistency and feeling that the NFL deals with each new scandal from the seat of their pants. And it all comes back to Playmakers. They can't acknowledge the craziness that happens on their watch, let alone PLAN for the inevitable consequences.

The NFL needs a starting point of penalties (with a range), a fairer appeals process, and to get their arms around what might happen next. How can these guys appear to get caught flat footed by every little thing?

REACT: Great points here about how the NFL's FIRST instincts, were to keep the warnings ultra-PRIVATE, so as to avoid embarrassment. In other words, player safety was the LAST thing on their mind. Keeping a shiny gloss to the image of the mighty "Shield" was, however, the FIRST thing on their mind.

Also, the equipment issue is a huge one. The league's crackdown on "illegal" hits is admirable - in theory - but it's just one piece of the puzzle. And it's the piece that costs the league the LEAST amount of money. In fact, it MAKES them money! Fine the players! There, that was easy! Not pushing for 18 games would COST money. Playing just two pre-season games would COST money. Purchasing and mandating new high-tech helmets would COST money. The league has very little interest in any of this.

Player safety. Pffftt. Get outta here with that.

The "net-net" of all of this, is that the league as we once knew it, is gone for good. It was once a legitimate sports league, operated by a central authority that knew the limits of its legal and ethical boundaries. There were rules and they were known and agreed upon. The Commissioner's power was not as over-arching and limitless as it now, obviously is.

The league existed to make money before, of course, but now it's lust for more and more profit, and less risk at any cost for its member teams is beyond insatiable.

The league is also in the greatest peril for lanscape re-shaping legal verdicts on multiple fronts that it has been for many years. Let me summarize them.

Player Lawsuits vs. NFL on concussions (actual and numerous)

Cowboys/Redskins Lawsuit on Salary Cap Penalty (possible)

Collusion Lawsuit by NFLPA (possible)

Blacklisting Lawsuit by Gregg Williams (possible)

And these are just a few of the legal storms currently on the extended radar. What we still can't account for, is the "unknown unknowns" as they say in military terms.

In other words: "The shit we haven't even seen coming yet."

I will still watch NFL football, because the GAME is awesome. Fast, hard hitting, unpredictable. It's a spectacle. And the athletes are just freaks.

But I am not going to worship the league like I once did. I won't likely buy the NFL Sunday Ticket again either. I don't need to burn an entire afternoon on Sunday when it's 75 and sunny in September sitting in my mancave watching three TVs.

A good game at 4 p.m., plus highlights of the other games and then the Sunday nighter. One more for good measure on Monday. That, along with my local "free" NFL team on over-the-air TV is quite alot.

Plus, I hear there is something out there callled... "a highlight package."

Hmmm. Do tell. Sound interesting.

Have fun with all of this stuff Roger. Looks like you and lawyers are going to be busy.

Title: "I Will Not Bow To 'The Shield': Understanding the Debate Over Mandatory Vaccinations"

Introduction

The ongoing debate surrounding mandatory vaccinations, often referred to as "The Shield," has ignited passionate discussions and raised complex ethical, legal, and public health questions. As the world grapples with the COVID-19 pandemic, the issue of vaccine mandates has taken center stage, leading to fervent arguments both in favor of and against compulsory vaccination. This article aims to explore the various facets of the mandatory vaccination debate, providing insights into the arguments on both sides and answering frequently asked questions (FAQs) to foster a deeper understanding of this contentious issue.

The Concept of "The Shield"

The term "The Shield" refers to the collective protection that widespread vaccination provides to a population against infectious diseases. By achieving a high level of vaccination coverage, a community can create a barrier that reduces the spread of a disease, thereby protecting vulnerable individuals who may not be able to receive vaccines, such as those with certain medical conditions or allergies.

The idea behind "The Shield" is that individual decisions to get vaccinated not only safeguard one's own health but also contribute to the well-being of the community as a whole. This concept has been particularly relevant in discussions about COVID-19 vaccinations.

Arguments in Favor of Mandatory Vaccinations

Proponents of mandatory vaccinations argue that they are necessary to achieve and maintain "The Shield" for the greater good of society. Here are some key arguments in favor of compulsory vaccination:

1. Public Health Benefits: Mandatory vaccinations help prevent the spread of deadly diseases and protect those who are most vulnerable, including infants, the elderly, and individuals with compromised immune systems.

2. Achieving Herd Immunity: High vaccination rates are essential to achieve herd immunity, which can effectively eliminate or significantly reduce the transmission of contagious diseases within a community.

3. Eradication of Diseases: Mandatory vaccination programs have played a crucial role in eradicating or near-eradicating diseases like smallpox and polio, saving countless lives.

4. Responsibility to the Vulnerable: Proponents argue that individuals have a moral and ethical responsibility to protect the health of the community, especially those who cannot be vaccinated.

5. Protecting Healthcare Systems: Widespread vaccination can help prevent overwhelming healthcare systems during disease outbreaks, ensuring that medical resources are available to all in need.

Arguments Against Mandatory Vaccinations

Opponents of mandatory vaccinations express concerns about personal freedom, medical autonomy, and the potential risks associated with vaccines. Here are some key arguments against compulsory vaccination:

1. Individual Rights: Critics argue that mandatory vaccinations infringe on individual rights, including the right to make decisions about one's own healthcare.

2. Medical Autonomy: Some believe that healthcare decisions, including vaccination, should be made voluntarily between patients and their healthcare providers, without government intervention.

3. Vaccine Safety Concerns: Critics express concerns about the safety and potential side effects of vaccines, advocating for the right to make informed choices about vaccination.

4. Slippery Slope: Opponents fear that accepting mandatory vaccinations for one disease could set a precedent for other vaccines or medical interventions to be mandated.

5. Religious and Philosophical Beliefs: Some individuals oppose vaccination on religious or philosophical grounds, and mandatory policies may conflict with their deeply held beliefs.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Let's address some frequently asked questions about mandatory vaccinations and "The Shield":

1. What is the difference between mandatory vaccinations and voluntary vaccinations?

Mandatory vaccinations are required by law, and individuals must receive specific vaccines to access certain services or participate in certain activities. Voluntary vaccinations are optional, and individuals choose whether to receive vaccines based on their own preferences and medical advice.

2. Are there any exemptions from mandatory vaccination requirements?

Exemptions from mandatory vaccination requirements vary by location and may include medical, religious, or philosophical exemptions. Some places have stricter vaccination policies with limited or no exemptions.

3. What is the role of government in mandating vaccinations?

Governments at various levels (local, state, national) may enact vaccination mandates to protect public health. These mandates typically include requirements for school entry, travel, or participation in certain occupations.

4. Can vaccines have side effects, and are they safe?

Vaccines can have side effects, but serious adverse reactions are rare. The safety of vaccines is rigorously tested in clinical trials before approval, and ongoing monitoring ensures their safety in the general population.

5. What is the threshold for achieving herd immunity?

The threshold for herd immunity varies by disease but generally requires a high percentage of the population to be vaccinated or immune to stop the spread of a contagious disease. For COVID-19, estimates have ranged from 70% to 85% vaccine coverage.

Conclusion

The debate over mandatory vaccinations and "The Shield" underscores the complex interplay between individual rights and the collective responsibility to protect public health. While proponents argue that compulsory vaccinations are necessary to achieve and maintain herd immunity, opponents emphasize personal freedom, medical autonomy, and vaccine safety concerns.

Balancing these interests is a challenge that requires thoughtful consideration of the scientific evidence, ethical principles, and legal frameworks. As the world continues to grapple with the COVID-19 pandemic, the discussion around mandatory vaccinations remains a critical and evolving issue with implications for public health, individual rights, and societal well-being.