Oh, and also, the unemployment figures you refer to, I think the reason they do that is to make the stats look better. Obviously if there's only a 5% unemployment rate, it looks better than the actual percentage which is probably more like 15%-20%. Makes the government feel like they're doing a good job and it probably scores them a few extra votes come election day.
Forum:
Ben Roethlisberger Motorcycle Accident
Submitted by esquire on
I know there aren't too many sports fans on this forum, but......Some of you may or may not have heard about the motorcycle accident this past Monday which put Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback, Ben Roethlisberger in the hospital with mulitple injuries. Ben was riding his bike without a helmet, which apparently in the state of Pennslyvania, is not a law. He had been talked to by his coach and the Pittsburgh Steelers management about riding his motorcycle, saying it would be in his best interest to not do something so dangerous. This accident came mere months after the Steelers won the Superbowl, Roethlisberger became the youngest quarterback in NFL history to win a Superbowl at age 24.
My question is, if a professional sports franchise invests however many millions of dollars in a player, should that team have the right to forbid him to do things off the field that may be hazardous to his career, such as riding a motorcycle without a helmet. This story goes back to the old idea of professional athletes having no concept of reality what with the millions of dollars that they make at such a young age. They seem to think they're invincible.
Had no idea you were a fellow Ramones fan Atratus.....Gabba Gabba Hey!
About there not being a bigger deal made about the no helmet and no license, we live in a society where celebrities are treated differently, like they're above the law. Now I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that's the way it is.
The mention of helmets in the military reminds me of a favourite example of how statistic can lie.
After the introduction of the steel helmet in WWI the number of soldiers admitted to hospital with head injuries increased dramatically. I forget the exact percentage of the increase. Looking purely at the hospitalisation statistics one could easily argue that helmets were in fact detrimental. The missing part of the equation, of course, is that dead men are not admitted to hospital and all those new injuries were men who would have otherwise have died.
This kind of thing is done every time the government releases unemployment figures. The "unemployed" are only those collecting unemployment insurance (oop, forgot my Newspeak, I mean, employment[/] insurance). Those collecting welfare are not unemployed, but "unemployable". People uneligable for E.I. like the small-business owner thal goes under from being over-regulated and over-taxed is not counted. The person who relies on the income of their spouse is not counted. The person that loses their job before earning enough insurable weeks and is living off their credit-card is not counted. The new immigrant that can't find a job and is relying on their sponsor is not counted.
The issue I have with the bicycle helmet law is that it is another law where there is a racial/religious way to avoid it. If you are a Sikh, you can just wear your turban rather than wear a helmet. They have that same right in construction sites and even in the military. The government has to walk the line between keeping it's citizen's safe and imposing rules that further insure that and giving people the right to freedom, in this case religious. I do not envy their position, trying to have that balance.
Well, I'll be damned. I know the song - I love the Ramones - but had no idea the book title was intentionally misspelled.
Speaking of motorcycle accidents and the Gropenführer - what about him wiping out his bike riding with no helmet and no valid licence? I'm surprised a bigger deal wasn't made of that.
Cemetery is spelled with a "C", but not in reference to Stephen King's "Pet Sematary", that's a line from the Ramones song for the soundtrack of the movie....
Good points Atratus, I suppose nothing really could have been done, but personally, if I was the owner of the team or a teammate of Roethlisberger, I'd be a little upset with him. I would first be wishing him a speedy recovery, and no permanent damage that would effect his playing career. He was, by the way, released from hospital after successful surgery, but is questionable whether he will play this year at all. I doubt very seriously he will. All I can say right now, is I hope it's a wake up call to young star athletes who are given the world on a silver platter and then think they're invincible. I guess it proves to them that they are mortal too.
On your second point, I heard the same arguments made when they brought in the bicycle helmet law years ago. People didn't like it and were saying, "if I get injured, isn't it my own fault?" Maybe if you were paying your own medical that would be okay, but in Canada, with a public run health care system, it's different since everyone else is splitting the bill. Cigarette taxes are simply a means of deterring young people to smoke. There are liquor taxes, but obviously not as high as cigarette taxes. In California, not too long ago, Governor Arnold was talking about imposing a "junk-food tax" to promote a healthier lifestyle. But this could be considered taking away a person's rights to live the life they want to.
Cemetary is spelled with a "C".
What rights his employer would have over his free time would depend entirely on the conditions of the contract he entered into with them. They could contract that he could not partake in dangerous activites , but pactically speaking, what good would that do? The goal of such a clause would be to protect a valuable asset, but how would it be enforced? They could penalise his income, but only at the risk of him being picked up at a similar rate of pay by a competing team will to not impose the limitation. Firiing him for dangerous behaviour is even more useless, because then they *definitely* lose their asset. In practical application they can do nothing more than what was done: strongly suggest that such risk is not in his own best interest and hope he takes it to heart.
Now, then, on a related note, what restrictions can a government reasonably impose (like helmet laws) in the name of public safety before the line is crossed into infringing on personal freedom? In a situations like helmet laws, seatbelt laws, etc. where the individual is not putting anyone at risk but himself, does the government even have the right to legislate that? How does a state-funded or subsidised medical system change that? When tax money is used for giving care to the injured, then the individual that put strain on the system through carelessness financially harms everyone else paying into it. But how far does that get carried? Helmet laws, anti-smoking laws... what about unhealthy foods? Unsanitary habits? Public transit is a well-established vector for the spread of disease - should it be illegal? Or should there be a levy on the operators to pay into the healthcare system? And if so, why is taxing the crap out of cigarettes not enough? What about alcohol? Vice tax or prohibition?