Hey, remember that whole Penn State investigation (or should it be “investigation”?) where the NCAA felt like it had to do something and sort of made things up as it went along to get to the result it wanted? Good times. Many of you weren’t concerned about it, as the cause was so noble and just and all.
So if this turns into a new crusade, I presume you guys won’t have a problem in the world with it. Because Mark Emmert means well.
“Female athletes, particularly basketball players, seem to be getting singled out in gender identity during games. What can the NCAA do about this?” one woman from Purdue asked.
Emmert asked what she thought could be done. The woman suggested sanctioning schools for improper behavior from fans.
“I would certainly support a proposal that would do that,” Emmert said. “If that’s a rule that makes sense and there ought to be some sanctioning like that, then I hope the membership brings that forward. I think that would make good sense.”
Who doesn’t like busting into a couple of choruses of “Kumbaya” now and then?
Yeah, this crap is nuts. Although I have to admit if it turns out that Alabama and Auburn could get into trouble over the callers on Finebaum, I might have to reconsider my objection to it.
(h/t MrSEC.com)
Get The Picture 
Emmert would make the perfect government bureaucrat. Nothing seems to be beyond his scope of righting all the wrongs no matter how ridiculous it is.
LikeLike
When the whole Polical Correctness issue began, it was reasonable, needed, and easy to support. But as per the usual with “cause people” it has been taken to the extreme by the zealots and stuffed down everyone’s throats in their attempts to control behavior. Now it is used to justify sticking our heads in the sands ignoring common sense actions that endanger lives and stomping on rights we once held precious. It is difficult to find words and actions that do not violate the extreme do-gooders’ sense of right and wrong.
While I don’t think Emmert, or the NCAA, is capable of addressing an issue this large, it doesn’t change my belief that the NCAA was right to have taken sanctions against State Penn for allowing a corrupt administration to cover up serious crimes to protect a football empire. What was done at State College was terribly wrong and the actions/comments coming from there in the past year have proven they would not have taken any sanctions on their own. I understand the concern about how far the reach of the NCAA should be but I am convinced had they not intervened nothing of significance would have been done by the school or the Big ? office.
LikeLike
So, you don’t support the efforts of zealots to control behavior, unless you don’t like the behavior that needs to be controlled? Hokay.
But I do agree that PSU was obviously not going to self-regulate the Sandusky affair. But several key players have been charged criminally, which had nothing to do with the NCAA. And PSU is facing civil lawsuits that are also independent of the NCAA.
LikeLike
Reasonable people will draw the line of where “too far” might be, on both sides of any issue, but extremism is usually pretty easy to determine by a larger group near the middle. What has happened to us in this divided nation is control by the extremes. Not just on the issue of PC, although that is a huge problem these days. Take the two political parties, the extreme left and right have made it almost impossible to get candidates who are moderate, or flexible enough, to govern us in a way that doesn’t require both sides to stay in their bunkers and lob bombs at each other. Same with this issue, protecting discrimination for gender, racial, and sexual differences is a reasonable thing to ask but changing the words “penmanship” and “history” is much ado about nothing. Hundreds of examples on this topic we could both identify and discuss for weeks.
I don’t think it fair to assume my comments were to shut down reasonable differences because it is pretty obvious you cannot legislate personal preferences out of any society without incurring a backlash or resentment. But if that is how you take it, fine with me. Being a target for what I believe, by people who do not know me at all, is something that I can live with. I am in the middle on most issues, or slightly left or right of center, but there are core issues I don’t compromise on and will fight any battle for. This particular one is one of the “light weight” ones to me, so I don’t fight about it until it impacts security, which it does at some point. Name calling and labels aren’t high on my list of what the government, or the NCAA, has to give me mandates on.
LikeLike
“until it impacts security, which it does at some point.”
Not to mention the chicks and their so-called District 9 rights (why should extremists even have rights), WingNutDaily issues high alerts Daily because the Department of Fatherland Security is impacting our security by buying up all our ammo and high-cap magazines to take away our freedoms so we’ll all be SOL up the creek without a paddle on the trail of tears to our choice of Gitmo*/FEMA Death Kamps/trailer parks in Florida
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/are-all-those-guns-and-ammunition-for-obamas-civilian-national-security-force_02042013
* Suggest not picking Door #1. Morale may be a little down because of security being impacted on the captives by giving the terrorists an opportunity to have at least one can of whup-ass per diem
“On average, he said, 30 detainees were “being enteral fed,” the Guantánamo term for the process of snaking a tube up a captive’s nose, down the back of his throat and into his stomach before pumping in a can of nutritional supplement.”
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/04/26/3366805/some-force-fed-captives-are-cleared.html
LikeLike
Leave it to you to think our stupidity of letting Political Correctness get in the way of common sense is something to make fun of.
I am not the least bit offended, nor do I feel violated, if I get stopped by a cop when a BOL for murder suspects has in the description of the suspects says 4 pale-faced Bubbas in a blue mini-van and I happen to be driving home from the Do Drop In with three friends in my navy blue Chrysler Caravan. My reaction would be to thank them for their alertness and let them know I will call it in if I see another matching vehicle and occupants. Should I happen to have a 100 pound sack of cocaine in my vehicle and get arrested because of that erroneous stop, that is my tough luck….I shouldn’t be in possession of something illegal and society is better with me behind bars, aren’t they?
Likewise, if our governement (and citizens) aren’t diligent when it comes to paying special attention to Muslim activities just because not all Muslims are jihadists, we are damned naive and will pay for that with additional losses of innocent lives. If there are 1 billion Muslims in the world and 10-15% of them are radical fundamentalists, that is over 100 million nuts who want your, and my families destroyed. Your damned right I consider that a security threat, and don’t care whether you, or they, like it. Frankly, if the Muslim religion did more to seperate themselves from the radicals by doing some version of ex-communication the spotlight would switch off them. All religions have extreme nutcases who kill in their name, this is the only one who doesn’t make a monumental effort to push away from the whackos who murder in the name of their god.
So yes, there are times where the idealistic version of Political Correctness has to take a backseat to the realities of society. I am fully aware some don’t agree with that position but fully confident that when they lose a loved one to this silliness they will get their heads of their asses.
LikeLike
Would you consider the 4th amendment to be an idealistic version of political correctness? Or would you consider it an important safeguard against living in a police state?
LikeLike
What constitutes “reasonable” searches has been defined/debated very differently by the courts over time, and is likely very different from what the Founding Fathers intended it to be. But yes, I think we have restricted law enforcement unreasonably in many situations, and in others I agree with the courts. The actual use of that term would vary with almost everyone you ask so it is unlikely the two of us would share the same interpretation. While I would never view my take as approaching anywhere near a “police state”, I do think there are circumstances where we should be more aggressive in allowing searches to protect the safety and security of citizens. That would certainly be opposed by many here, but it is a very accepted position by a large percentage of the population. Can that be taken advantage of and exploited? Certainly, and that is why judgement and individual circumstance reviews have to prevail.
Frome past posts I know you are smart enough to realize we don’t live in a world where things can be categorized as black or white. And I don’t have the typing skills to debate all those tens of thousands nuances with anyone on the net. Much better reserved for a bottle of Macallan and a fire.
LikeLike
“I am not the least bit offended, nor do I feel violated, if I get stopped by a cop when a BOL for murder suspects has in the description of the suspects says 4 pale-faced Bubbas in a blue mini-van and I happen to be driving home from the Do Drop In with three friends in my navy blue Chrysler Caravan.”
How often has that happened?
And you would start getting the least bit offended if it happened to you every day?
Those are rhetorical questions. No need to respond. Just think about the privilege that comes with being a “pale-faced Bubba.”
LikeLike
If you think that the difference between Obama, who wants to grow federal spending by 8% a year, and Romney, who wants to grow federal spending by 5% a year, is extreme, then I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
Similarly, if you think that an individual spectator singling out a female basketball player’s “gender identity” constitutes institutional discrimination worthy of punishing the school where the incident occurred is reasonable, then we have very different definitions of that word as well.
Not to mention that the NCAA’s preferred mechanism for both deciding on what is reasonable, and deciding on an appropriate punishment for it, is to just wing it. And you seem OK with that. I mean, what’s the worst that could happen?
LikeLike
All depends on where you’re going to spend it. Particularly when you’re talking about a population that is both growing and aging.
LikeLike
Man, you read a lot into opinions expressed and interpret/apply them in some twisted ways. But I guess that is why “conversations” on the internet lead to erroneous judgements and require more info before taking the leap. I don’t support either of the examples cited in your post, but perhaps you meant something other than what I read. “What we have heah is a failure to communicate”.
LikeLike
Mac, knowing how hard it was to get that statement out and wait for the legal eagles’ saw words, you overwhelmingly get the “Cojones Standup” Award for courage in not allowing anyone to reframe your words and intentions. Good Dawg.
LikeLike
Mark Emmert and Mike Slive are both ASS-CLOWNS, one thinks he is the NCAA, and the other is trying to be just like him. “I’m just sayin” GATA “GO DAWGS”
LikeLike
What do you want him to say? “Yelling ‘dyke’ or ‘faggot’ at an opposing player is just part of the fun and we can’t, nor should, do anything about it even if the home team encourages it via jumbotron?” I think the heads of most enforcement agencies want to: 1) be sympathetic to circumstances where those under their jurisdiction might be harmed and 2) believe that they aren’t powerless to help when they are.
LikeLike
Yeah D, but that #2 is the crux isn’t it. When you don’t know you can’t but think you can, you act on your incorrect perception and do things that compound the mess, all in your noble goal to ‘fix’ the error(s).
(Please note my use of “you” in that 2nd sentence wasn’t at you Derek per se, but a hypothetical aimed at ME & the NC2A.)
LikeLike
The “war on drugs” immediately comes to mind. I agree that enforcement agencies are full of shit when it comes to actually “helping.” I’m just sympathetic to emmert’s response in this instance given his position and the question. I mean if you asked a Sherrif in bumf*^k Tennessee if we should do something about the meth problem what do you want him to say? “Are you kidding me? Waste of time and resources. I’d no sooner get these morons to read a book than to keep them from getting high.” We might appreciate the honesty but I’d expect him to say that he both can and will. I’d also expect his constituents to continue consuming about the same amount of meth; with or without the sheriff’s interest.
LikeLike
Sounds like simple pandering by a politician to me.
Does this mean NCAA could sanction that silly ass Gator Chop those Blue Bellys do toward opposing teams, or is this simply gender specific?
LikeLike
I think Alpha is about right. Somebody hit Emmert from the blind side and he did his best ‘we’re concerned’ imitation. But the woman who brought up the issue is a joke. “I am woman, hear me bore.”
LikeLike
A tranny friend of mine would “Fetch someone a lick up beside the head” for such remarks. You have to figure out the semantics for yourself.
LikeLike
Emmert asked what she thought could be done. The woman suggested sanctioning schools for improper behavior from fans.
“I would certainly support a proposal that would do that,” Emmert said. “If that’s a rule that makes sense and there ought to be some sanctioning like that, then I hope the membership brings that forward. I think that would make good sense.”
My first thought was that this could have a run-in w/ free speech rights, at least in a public university. Do we have any First Amendment experts in the house?
LikeLike
Only to say that free speech doesn’t mean you can shout “Fire!!” in a crowded theatre. What happens when you shout homophobic/gender words/phrases at a football game would probably depend on how many offended people are present closeby or how many of those offended are anxious to show off their Tae kwan doe skills on a redneck’s anatomy. Being an aggressive male drunkass and shouting such crud means that you already are at a disadvantage to those people physically, no matter what you have been taught as to the strength and fighting skills of other genders and sexual persuasions.
In this freedom-loving modern era, the gender territories have changed, no matter whether you have kept up with them or not . We don’t need no stinkin’ legislation because it will eventually disappear along with those aholes at a large public gathering. While I’m sorta Lenny Bruce about words not hurting eardrums ; you insult someone as a habit and you will get floored. That can and will occur in the stands (if gay slurs happen) and I have every faith that the gen pop at UGA games is educated past those denigrating epithets.
Back in the early 60s there was a bar in Atlanta that didn’t cotton to such language and three of the regular patrons were said to be the size of football linemen (no kidding; the rumor was that they were former or present Tech players). They regularly wiped the floors with any rednecks that got out of sorts and more than once were in the papers for having riotous conditions occurring. It was reported that they were aggressive in their defense of gays. At that time Atl was known as the San Francisco of the South in more than one category. It still is.
LikeLike
Sorry. That’s my post.
LikeLike