In terms of violence and debauchery, professional sports more and more resembles the gladiator games of the Roman empire.  This may sound like an extreme statement, but consider two recent developments:

• First is the matter of violence.  One of the worst brawls in NBA history occurred last weekend (19 November 2004) near the end of the Pacers-Pistons basketball game.  Players and fans exchanged punches in the stands, as chairs, beer, popcorn and punches were thrown.  Indiana’s Ron Artest and Stephen Jackson charged into the crowd and fought with fans in the final minute of the game, forcing an early end to the Pacers’ 97-82 victory.  The fracas began, when, after some pushing and shoving between the two teams, fans began throwing things at players near the scorer’s table.  After a fan threw a cup at Artest, Artest and then Jackson charged into the stands, throwing punches at fans.  Security personnel and ushers tried to break it up--unsuccessfully.  Artest and Jackson, along with several other Pacers, have been suspended and all will face significant loss of salaries during the suspension.  And it is difficult to believe that there will not be lawsuits resulting from the brawl.  Athletics, even professional athletics, has often served up role models for American youth.  Consider this scenario: Teens in disadvantaged areas are gifted in athletic ability and see professional athletes as role models.  They are energized to try hard to succeed in their chosen sport.  This motivates them to do well in school and try harder in everything.  But also consider what those same teens conclude when they see a Ron Artest or a Stephen Jackson.  Athletics, even professional sports, are not only about winning the game, they are about sportsmanship, about developing character.  Athletics is a vehicle for developing self control, stress control, discipline, focus and determination.  Artest and Jackson failed in all these areas and should be permanently expelled from professional basketball.  They are damaging professional sports and serve as terrible role models.  I repeat: If they cannot exercise self control, they should be permanently dismissed from the sport.  Finally, a word about the fans.  Whether it is basketball, football or baseball, I do not believe beer should be served at the respective sporting events.  There is no doubt that some of the fans who threw things at the players had had too much to drink.  It is difficult for me to defend having alcohol at professional sporting events.  What occurred at Auburn Hills, Michigan last Friday evening is perhaps a metaphor for the decadence of some of professional sports--both in terms of the professional athletes and in terms of the fans.  May the NBA (and other professional sports as well) consider this brawl a wake-up-call.
• Second is the matter of TV advertising and entertainment.  One thinks of the debauchery of last year’s Super Bowl game and half-time show.  But also consider last Monday evening’s NFL football game.  Near the beginning of the game, an advertisement aired that showed “Desperate Housewife” star Nicollette Sheridan appearing in the Philadelphia Eagles’ locker room clad in a white towel.  Eagles’ star Terrell Owens, ready to go onto the field, was seduced by Sheridan to have sex in the locker room with her.  The seduction centered on her dropping her towel and appearing completely nude.  Of course, the viewers did not see her nudity, but it required no imagination.  Offensive to me as a Christian was that Sheridan wore a cross around her neck.  Why did she do that?  To legitimize her disgusting immorality?  What does this advertisement say about professional sports advertising?  Several thoughts: (1) Such a TV ad reinforces stereotypes, namely the stereotype of the professional athlete who is driven by two things--the fabulous money he is paid and hyped-up sex.  So, Terrell Owens represents the Everyman of professional athletes--he is paid well and has sex on his mind.  When he must choose between his teammates and sex, he chooses sex.  (2) It stereotypes women as bimbos, interested only in sex; she will do anything to seduce her man.  This culture has fought such stereotypes for a long time, but in 2004, ABC, the Disney organization and the NFL, apparently still view woman as sex objects.  (3) I return to a theme I cited above:  Consider the fact of role models.  What kind of a role model is Terrell Owens in this advertisement?  What kind of role model is Nicollette Sheridan in this advertisement?  No doubt teenage guys and girls were watching Monday Night Football last week.  What was the message they received from this steamy ad--be a stud if you are a guy; be a hussy if you are a gal?  (4) Fourth, who makes such decisions in the TV/NFL industry?  Was it a father?  Was it the father of a daughter?  Is this what TV executives and NFL leaders really want to communicate to our youth?  (5) Does this ad not fuel the image of a male-dominated media and sports industry that focuses on promoting the same alcohol-fueled, sexed-up professional sports machine that characterizes almost all sports?  I think it does.  If I were a woman, I would find this advertisement offensive and disgusting and I would let ABC, Disney and the NFL know my measure of disgust.  This ad reinforces the male chauvinist image and the female bimbo image that the sexual liberation movement was supposed to kill.  But such images are apparently alive and well within the NFL!!

See the news report on the brawl in the New York Times (21 November 2004) and the editorial by Harvey Araton in the same issue.

Back to top

THE DANGER OF RU-486

The Food and Drug Administration recently announced that it will strengthen the warning label for the drug RU-486 (brand name Mifeprex).  Allow me a few thoughts about this decision.

• First, the story of how RU-486 got approval is buried in 9,300 pages of documents, just released through the Freedom of Information Act to Judicial Watch.  As Donna J. Harrison, an Ob-Gyn doctor and specialist on RU-486, has shown, these documents show that the Clinton administration—which had been warned of the drug’s potential hazards as far back as 1995 in a citizen petition filed by Americans United for Life—pushed to get RU-486 approved before the 2000 election despite lack of reliable data demonstrating its safety.  Three Americans, one Canadian, two Britons, and one Swede are known to have died after taking RU-486.  Harrison reports of 676 “problems with the drug, including 17 ectopic pregnancies, 72 cases of blood loss so severe that they required transfusions and 7 cases of serious infections.”  RU-486 is actually a two-drug regimen, consisting of 600 milligrams of mifepristone followed, one to two days later, by 400 milligrams of a drug called misoprostol.  The first pill starves the developing embryo; the second induces uterine contractions to expel it and other tissue.  Serious dangers can arise if the pregnant woman takes the first pill but fails to take the second, or if she or her clinic miscalculates dates.  Since the dangers of the regimen substantially increase after 49 days from conception, the ability to cause a complete abortion significantly decreases.

• Second, how did this dangerous drug get approval?  Harrison demonstrates that five standard procedural and scientific requirements to prove safety and effectiveness were circumvented to get RU-486 onto the market quickly.  (1) Normally, the FDA requires two randomized, blinded and controlled tests for new drug applicants.  For RU-486, the FDA approved it on the basis of uncontrolled clinical tests.  (2) The FDA approved the drug using its “accelerated approval regulations,” which Congress designed for high risk drugs to help people with AIDS or cancer.  Pregnancy is not an illness and is not a life-threatening disease like AIDS or cancer.  (3) The FDA approved the use of misoprostol, the second drug in the regimen, over the objections of its manufacturer, Searle.  The company had created the drug to treat gastric ulcers.  (4) The FDA approved RU-486 for use without the safeguards observed in the original clinical tests.  (5) The FDA approved the drug for use on women of any age, yet it had no clinical data on the impact on those under 18.  This contradicted the agency’s 1996 written directive to the manufacturer that such data would be required for approval. 

• Finally, RU-486 and its approval demonstrate how politicized its approval really was.  It was promoted by the Clinton administration to fulfill a campaign promise.  This is not the manner in which drug policy should be made.  This is a dangerous procedure and one that should be re-examined.  The FDA should review the drug regimen following the five procedures cited above.  If the agency is honest, it will not approve the drug.  At the very least, it should be suspended pending further testing and a new approval process.

See Harrison’s powerful article in the New York Times (19 November 2004).

Back to top

FURTHER REFLECTIONS ON THE 2004 ELECTION

As we move farther in time from the 2004 presidential election, the blame game and the subsequent analysis are rampant in both the Democratic party and in the news media.  New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, a columnist I greatly respect, has engaged in hyperbolic charges about the election.  For example, he cites “Christian fundamentalists” who used “their religious energy to promote divisions and intolerance at home and aboard,” as decisive in the election’s outcome.  Garry Wills, in an article in the New York Review of Books, has made essentially the same charge.  However, James Q. Wilson has shown that these explanations are wide of the mark.  The nation did not undergo a rightward shift in 2004 any more that it had when it elected Reagan in 1980 and re-elected him in 1984.  John Kerry showed great skill at embracing deeply contradictory positions.  What was remarkable in this election was that President Bush never changed:  He said what he meant and meant what he said. 

It is true that moral values were important to some: based on exit polls, to about one-fifth of all voters.  And of those, the overwhelming majority supported President Bush.  But, as Wilson shows,  almost exactly the same fraction said that jobs and the economy were the most important issues, and of these the overwhelming majority supported Senator Kerry.  Further 34% of those questioned found terrorism and the Iraq war to be most important.  So, for Friedman to argue that Christian fundamentalists are ruining America by fostering “divisions and intolerance” is like arguing that liberals are fostering divisions and intolerance by favoring abortion and gay marriages. 

The ritualistic condemnation of Christian fundamentalists neglects two things, Wilson argues.  (1)  Secularists are just as likely to provoke moral outrage as are religious believers, yet we rarely read stories about the Secular Left.  (2)  Research shows that organizations of Christian fundamentalists are hardly ever made up of "firebreathers" but rather organizations whose members practice consensual politics and observe the rule of law.  One of the major lessons of this election is the profound liberal bias among many big-city newspapers and most TV stations.  In fact, Evan Thomas, Newsweek reporter, argues that the left media added 5 points to the Democrats' total.  

Determining who voted for whom and why they voted the way they did is not simple, and some of the Monday-morning quarterbacking going on lacks the analysis and complexity of determining why people did vote the way they did.  There is no doubt that President Bush won the religious vote, at least the evangelical and Catholic vote, both of which were probably decisive in Ohio and Florida.  But if the media will cite Christian fundamentalists in such apocalyptic terms, perhaps they had better do the same with the Secular Left, which are really more wealthy, powerful and influential.  Consider Hollywood, George Soros and Michael Moore.  When the analysis is all over, I believe it will show something rather simple.  George Bush said in very clear terms what he meant to do and meant what he said he would do.  The same could not be said for John Kerry.  Apparently, the majority of Americans believed they could trust the President’s forthrightness.

See Wilson’s very helpful analysis in the Wall Street Journal (8 November 2004). 

Back to top