Good for the Goose
Boxing is a celebration of the lost religion
of masculinity
all the more trenchant for its being lost
--On Boxing, Joyce Carol Oates
You have to consider the possibility
that God does not like you,
never wanted you, and in all probability,
he HATES you
--Fight Club (1999)
Eyes they have but do not see
ears they have but do not hear
--Psalms, 115:6
____________________
Ranger Moral Conundrum of the Day:
If a radical Islamist believes that God will grant him a heavenly eternity for conducting a martyr attack in an airplane, is it safe to assume that this same God will award eternity to a Christian pilot for a martyr-type ramming of her plane upon a hijacked craft, as in the recently-reported case of Pilot Penny?
If so, this is an eternal, self-licking ice cream cone.
_________________
of masculinity
all the more trenchant for its being lost
--On Boxing, Joyce Carol Oates
You have to consider the possibility
that God does not like you,
never wanted you, and in all probability,
he HATES you
--Fight Club (1999)
Eyes they have but do not see
ears they have but do not hear
--Psalms, 115:6
____________________
Ranger Moral Conundrum of the Day:
If a radical Islamist believes that God will grant him a heavenly eternity for conducting a martyr attack in an airplane, is it safe to assume that this same God will award eternity to a Christian pilot for a martyr-type ramming of her plane upon a hijacked craft, as in the recently-reported case of Pilot Penny?
If so, this is an eternal, self-licking ice cream cone.
_________________
Today's question concerns hypocrisy in our approach to another sort of fighter, he who does battle in the sporting arena.
Why do we agonize over the potential damage wrought in football by helmet-to-helmet hits, late hits and bone-crunching blocks and tackles, while we thrill over watching men bash each other to a pulp in the boxing ring? Our concern for our sportsmen's safety does not seem to be an absolute.
It seems a behavior is either brutal or not, in an absolute way. If we quail over traumatic brain injuries in our gridiron warriors, why not over those in our pugilists?
The same inconsistent cavalier attitude can be seen among some who dismiss concerns over current war casualties as being "part of the game" -- something the servicemen signed up for. Whether one chooses to become an infantryman or is drafted into the position, the concern for his well-being should be absolute. And yet, it is not. We are very good at shedding responsibility by saying the peril that another faces is his choice, and so of little matter to us; his feet weren't nailed to the floor.
We justify damage in the same way with our use of torture: "He was a bad man, and so was asking for it." While true that the laws of the planet suggest that to commit violence is to earn someone's wrath, bad behavior is still not justification for retributive bad behavior in the form of torture at the hands of ostensibly spotless parties.
When is it correct to be responsible, and when may we abdicate responsibility? If the subjects are not part of our team or our tribe? If they get paid good money to risk being damaged? If they are fool enough to remain in the rink?
Just a little thought for your consideration.
--Jim & Lisa
Why do we agonize over the potential damage wrought in football by helmet-to-helmet hits, late hits and bone-crunching blocks and tackles, while we thrill over watching men bash each other to a pulp in the boxing ring? Our concern for our sportsmen's safety does not seem to be an absolute.
It seems a behavior is either brutal or not, in an absolute way. If we quail over traumatic brain injuries in our gridiron warriors, why not over those in our pugilists?
The same inconsistent cavalier attitude can be seen among some who dismiss concerns over current war casualties as being "part of the game" -- something the servicemen signed up for. Whether one chooses to become an infantryman or is drafted into the position, the concern for his well-being should be absolute. And yet, it is not. We are very good at shedding responsibility by saying the peril that another faces is his choice, and so of little matter to us; his feet weren't nailed to the floor.
We justify damage in the same way with our use of torture: "He was a bad man, and so was asking for it." While true that the laws of the planet suggest that to commit violence is to earn someone's wrath, bad behavior is still not justification for retributive bad behavior in the form of torture at the hands of ostensibly spotless parties.
When is it correct to be responsible, and when may we abdicate responsibility? If the subjects are not part of our team or our tribe? If they get paid good money to risk being damaged? If they are fool enough to remain in the rink?
Just a little thought for your consideration.
--Jim & Lisa
Labels: boxing, football, martyrs, TBI, traumatic brain injury
posted by rangeragainstwar at 10:49 PM
4 Comments:
Jim, Jim, Jim... Lisa, Lisa, Lisa...
War is but a metaphor for sports.
The captain of the football team has to stay healthy and free of visible facial deformities, else how can he marry the homecoming queen and take over his father's auto dealership, as the natural order decrees?
Pugilism is for slaves, for servants, for those unblessed by the white man's burden.
Cholo,
That's kind of what I figured. My grandfather boxed in his youth, but that was because he needed money.
Football is for those who can afford an RV and tiny t.v's and headphones and mascot gear.
Hi, I have a question you may or may not be able to answer. My grandmother sent us an actual copy of the "you can sleep tonight, the Air Force is watching" picture. I wanted to know if you knew where that came from?
CP,
i don't know where it originated, but i saw it around since the middle 70's.
jim
Post a Comment
<< Home