The Controversy is not going to give an opinion this week. Not because I don't have one...I always have an opinion. But this blog was created so that I could express my points of view...and by doing so...to then trigger a conversation among other people.
The Controversy is intended to spark ideas, impressions and reactions from my readers. Many, many thousands of Americans and people all around the world have been logging on to this blog and reading my commentaries throughout the last 22 months. But in order for The Controversy to continue - let me repeat that please - in order for The Controversy to continue...it must entice a discussion between Democrats and Republicans...between those who say "yes" about an issue and those who say "no"...and between people who argue over a controversial matter and say "this should be done" or "that should be done." What is it that YOU stand for? Do you agree or do you disagree? What is that makes YOUR blood boil?
So this week...the nation is talking about domestic violence and child abuse...and whether a person - especially those who are famous athletes - are innocent until proven guilty...or guilty until proven innocent. Of course in the United States...ALL Americans are considered innocent until proven guilty. But does everybody actually feel that way? And with social media... surveillance cameras in practically every building and on street corners and highway poles...and everyone with the capability of shooting a video from their cell phones...are people convicted in the public eye before they ever go to trial?
Were the Baltimore Ravens right or wrong to suspend running back Ray Rice for allegedly beating his then fiance (now wife) on February 15th, 2014 and dragging her unconscious body from a building elevator? And yes - unless a person is convicted of a crime - as a journalist, I must refer to the incident as being an "alleged" beating. Rice was released by the Ravens on September 8th, 2014 after TMZ made public the video, which caused Rice to be indicted by a grand jury on March 17th, 2014. Oh I know most of you - like me - have seen the video...but should a person be tried in a public forum before being entitled to a courthouse trial with a judge and jury?.jpg)
Do you believe the Minnesota Vikings are correct to not let running back Adrian Peterson play football while he is suspected of child abuse? Peterson was indicted earlier this month for disciplining his four-year old son...allegedly spanking him with a tree branch. On September 12th, 2014, the team deactivated Peterson. But on September 15th...Vikings management reinstated him. After that...the Radisson Hotel chain cancelled its advertising with the Vikings. Two days later, the team decided to again put Peterson on the sidelines and to indefinitely suspend him. Peterson has also been dropped from representing Nike and other corporate sponsors...plus Peterson's jerseys have been removed from numerous stores including Target, Dick's Sporting Goods and Sports Authority.
Another professional football player from the National Football League faces domestic violence charges. Police arrested Arizona Cardinals running back Jonathan Dwyer on September 18th, 2014 for allegedly headbutting his wife during a domestic dispute last July after she refused to have sex with her husband the day before. Dwyer was also charged with child abuse after he allegedly threw a shoe at his 17-month old son. Dwyer says he never assaulted his wife and that he never harmed his child. However, the Cardinals last week deactivated Dwyer from all team activities. So do you feel Dwyer should be chased off the field before a court of law proves that the charges against him are justified?
Dwyer has been placed on the Cardinals "Reserve/Non-Football Illness List" while Adrian Peterson's name is on the NFL's "Exempt List"...which states the league's commissioner has declared a player to be temporarily exempt from counting within the Active List limit. Also on the "Exempt List" is Carolina Panthers defensive end Greg Hardy who is currently appealing his conviction for assaulting and threatening his girlfriend. The Panthers say Hardy won't play anymore games until his domestic violence case is resolved. Is the team right...or is the team wrong? However, just because a player is on the "Exempt List" doesn't mean they don't get paid their salaries. As for Peterson...he'll still be receiving a weekly paycheck of about six-hundred-ninety-one-thousand dollars.With national companies cancelling contracts with athletes and teams...is the suspension of players all about the money and the millions and billions of dollars that advertisers spend to sponsor sports teams and sporting events? And there are many other questions that are stirring the pot all across the United States concerning whether the NFL or NFL teams should toss their players aside before a judge or jury finds them guilty. Should the NFL do that...or should players be allowed on the field while they fight their accusers and defend themselves in a court of law?
Again...I'm not saying a word about my own personal thoughts - at least not now - but I want YOU...I ASK YOU...and I must have YOU...the tens of thousands of readers of The Controversy to put in your "two cents" (so to speak)...and to express your thoughts...to shout out your written opinions...and to verbally bash each other - if that's what you want to do and if that's what it takes...to get you to speak your mind. The Controversy NEEDS YOU...to challenge each other in a spirited conversation. And then to re-post a link to The Controversy on your Facebook pages, Twitter feeds and with every e-mail you send out. The Controversy lives or dies by what YOU think. So it's up to you. You can post a nice comment...or you can spew venom. You can be kind to one another...or you can be hateful. Vent out your frustrations and feelings in whatever way floats your boat. But speak up. I know you have something to say...so say it here.
And that's The Controversy for today.
I'm Gary B. Duglin.
"We'll talk again."
The Controversy is a publication of GBD Productions. Founder and Editor-In-Chief of The Controversy is Gary B. Duglin.
One of the chief goals of a blog...one of the major reasons to publish a blog...is to entice others to express their opinions about the subject for which the author is writing. The Controversy is being read by a tremendous amount of people throughout the United States of America and all around the world. If you agree or disagree...your views are welcomed. Tell me that you love what I write...or that you hate it. Give your name...make up one...or remain anonymous if you prefer. The Controversy is your outlet to speak your mind and to say what you want about the topics discussed. Please share The Controversy with others by posting it on Facebook, Twitter and on other social media forums. Please also pass a link to everyone in your e-mail directories. The Controversy wants to know your thoughts on the column above or on any other commentary or essay written on this blog.
The Controversy will make an effort to publish a new commentary every Sunday. Unscheduled essays may appear, from time to time, on other days as well
Now, please express your opinions. Just click on the word "Comments" below and write your remarks in the box that appears. Make sure please that when you finish your statement that you click on the word "Publish." Thank you for your thoughts and thank you for reading The Controversy.
Copyright 2014 Gary B. Duglin and TheControversy.net. All Rights Reserved.
Our system of justice in the USA is based on “innocent until proven guilty”. The public and or corporate world has no such requirement; people have the right to make their own judgment on someone’s guilt or innocence as do companies and sport teams. In the court room a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty but in the court of public opinion it is different. Would you want an accused pedophile and child rapist working at your local middle school? I think not! Companies have the right to make decision on what will affect their bottom line as long as the policy is not discriminatory or illegal, it should be up to them. The public does not want to buy a product from a company that has an accused wife beater or an accused child abuser as spokesman. Most if not all of the contracts between athlete and sports team/league has morals clauses and clauses about actions that unbecoming to the team/league. Just being involved with an item that causes the team or company to be look bad can be grounds for the team or the company to take action.
ReplyDelete