Winning isn't the only thing, not at Texas Tech

It’s always noteworthy when a University that places high value on its football program opts for good behavior even at the possible cost of a game (or more). That’s why this column made such a fuss over Oregon Ducks football coach Chip Kelly when he suspended his star running back for sucker punching an opposing player who was taunting him after a Ducks loss in their season opener.

Now we want to give three cheers for Texas Tech, who suspended football coach Mike Leach on the eve of Saturday’s big Alamo Bowl Game against Michigan State. Leach is accused of punishing a player who suffered a concussion in practice.

 A source close to the player’s family told ESPN that he sustained a concussion on Dec. 16, was examined on Dec. 17 and told not to practice because of the concussion and an elevated heart rate. The source said Coach Leach called a trainer and directed him to move James "to the darkest place, to clean out the equipment and to make sure that he could not sit or lean. He was confined for three hours." According to the source, Leach told the trainer, two days later, to "put [James] in the darkest, tightest spot. It was in an electrical closet, again, with a guard posted outside."

The suspension will surely be litigated, and we’re not sure yet what all the facts are. What’s clear and indisputable, however, is that Texas Tech, occasionally maligned as a football factory, places player safety and ethical behavior above winning. Here’s hoping their first reward is a win over the Spartans Saturday in the Alamo Bowl.

Heckuva job, Janet

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano just gave Americans the best reason to distrust their government since Bush’s “Heckuva job, Brownie.” Jack Marshall has an excellent analysis of her egregious misstatement about the attempted destruction of the Northwest airliner (“The system worked.”)  on his EthicsAlarms blog, at http://ethicsalarms.com/2009/12/28/napolitano-ethics-heck-of-a-job-janet/comment-page-1/#comment-602

Napolitano later, when correcting herself, said that she had been quoted out of context. Marshall’s article demonstrates that this is another untruth.

It’s the depths of unethical behavior to lie from a position of trust. It’ll take a lot to get people to trust Napolitano again. Worse, her egregious misstatement will confirm for millions their justification for distrusting all government.

A lesson in shame from the Indianapolis Colts

Ethics in sports means trying your best to win while behaving with integrity. Sometimes winning and integrity are at odds, and people have to choose. They can choose honorably, as tennis player Andy Roddick famously did in the 2005 Rome Masters tournament when he corrected an umpire’s wrong call to his own disadvantage and it wound up costing him the match. Or they can choose dishonorably, as gymnast Paul Hamm did in the 2004 Olympics when he kept a gold medal that had been awarded to him on a scorer’s error.

Coach Jim Caldwell chose dishonorably yesterday when he chose to keep his best players healthy as the playoffs approached. His Indianapolis Colts were two wins away from an undefeated 16-0 season, playing a game that was meaningless for them (they already had clinched top seed in the playoffs), but that meant a great deal to their opponents, the New York Jets, who were battling seven other teams for the last two playoff berths in the American Football Conference. It also—presumably—meant something to the Colts’ fans who shelled out big money to see them play.

Caldwell pulled his starters early in the second half, leading 15-10. He replaced all-pro quarterback Peyton Manning with Curtis Painter, a rookie who had never played a down in the NFL. Painter promptly fumbled in his own end zone, handing a touchdown to the Jets, who went on to win, 29-15.

The Colts are now 14-1, their fans are disappointed, and the Jets have an unearned edge in the race for the last playoff spot.

Sport is said to teach us about character. Yesterday it taught us about shame.

Santa Claus, Build-a-Bear, and global warming

Where are the ethical boundaries in videos aimed at children? Is it OK to show a video about Santa and his helpers? We know (shhh) there’s not really a Santa Claus; is it OK to pretend there is to entertain (and mislead) children?

So OK, Santa is a fiction, but writing fiction is ethical. Fiction deals with real life and real issues—life and death, war and peace, love and hate, duty and temptation, and so on. Fiction for children, especially children of an age to want cuddly teddy bears, is more likely to deal with more age-appropriate issues—telling the truth, being a friend, obeying parents.

The Build-a-Bear Company is in the business of selling build-it-yourself bears to children, and along the way, to teach children something about citizenship and helping others. Their website until a couple of days ago had—along with interactive games designed for the 3-5 yr old set—three videos about Santa’s helpers, a penguin, and two cuddly polar bear cubs, all of whom were worrying about global warming and the ongoing melting of the polar icecap. One of the videos had a gross exaggeration—that the polar icecap would disappear before Christmas (i.e., today).

It’s arguable how great a sin it is to exaggerate the degree of icecap melting in a video about Santa. Build-a-Bear should have been more accurate. But apparently the greater sin is to deal with global warming at all. In response to expressions of outrage from global-warming deniers and threats of boycott, Maxine Clark, founder and Chief Executive Bear of Build-a-Bear, apologized and withdrew the offending videos from the Bear website.

             Rather than police what their children do on the computer, some people prefer to shut down the voice of Build-a-Bear, so that nobody can hear it. And shamefully, Build-a-Bear knuckled under to the pressure and gave up on their effort to teach a few children a little about global warming.

The ethics argument for health care reform

The health care debate is too much for any individual to understand completely. That’s why reading a bill on the Senate floor doesn’t contribute to the debate, other than to slow it down. There are persuasive arguments on all sides: doesn’t go far enough, goes too far, costs too much, gives too much to the insurance companies, is unfair to the insurance companies, and on and on.

I only know two things for sure about it, one ethical, one historical.

First, the ethical argument: What kind of society do we want to be a part of? Remember Lincoln asking if we wanted to be part of a nation that was half slave, half free? Remember John Kennedy asking if we wanted to be part of a wealthy nation with millions suffering from hunger. It’s time for Americans to ask ourselves whether we want to be a part of a society that provides its political leaders and most everybody else with health care, but leaves fifty million—one of every six Americans—uninsured, with additional millions worried sick that they’ll lose their insurance.

An ethical person must reject this status quo as unacceptable, a violation of the Golden Rule and of the principles of virtue ethics. So the system needs to be changed.

Now the thing I know about history: Theodore Roosevelt first proposed health care reform in 1912, then Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton. All failed. If the current attempt fails we’ll likely go many years before reform is even attempted in the Congress.

So an ethical person must work to pass reform now—not necessarily the House bill, not necessarily the Senate bill, but SOME bill. The ethical person doesn’t want his country to take care of five-sixths and leave the rest to fickle fortune

Distortions about Senator Whitehouse in the WSJ and Washington Times

                              --and slurs across the political spectrum.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I. gave a tough thoughtful speech on the Senate floor Sunday, blasting Republican obstructionism over, not only the health care bill but even against the defense appropriation bill. He asked,

“Why all this discord and discourtesy, all this unprecedented destructive action? All to break the momentum of our new young president. They are desperate to break this president. They have ardent supporters who are nearly hysterical at the very election of President Barack Obama. The birthers, the fanatics, the people running around in right-wing militia and Aryan support groups, it is unbearable to them that President Barack Obama should exist.

“That is one powerful reason, it is not the only one. The insurance industry one of the most powerful bodies in politics, is another reason.”

It’s perfectly clear that Whitehouse was blasting the unanimous Republican senators. There is no way, however, to construe his remarks like this headline on the Washington Times website does:

Sen. Whitehouse: Foes of health care bill are birthers, right-wing militias, aryan groups

The headline was picked up verbatim by the Wall Street Journal’s website too, and the sense of it was repeated even on the middle-of-the-road Morning Joe show on MSNBC.

Whitehouse clearly did NOT say—or mean—what the headline said. He said that the Republicans had ardent supporters who…etc. But so few Republicans  distance themselves from the fanatics, and so many embrace their bile, that it’s almost tempting to accuse Whitehouse of understatement.

But the WSJ and the Washington Times got his remarks very wrong. Too bad for all of us if their slander goes uncorrected.

The video of the entire 12-1/2 min Whitehouse speech is at http://drblues.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/senator-whitehouse-calls-out-the-paranoid-republicans/. Worth watching and make up your own mind.

So's John McCain

     Thanks to Rachel Maddow for ferreting this out after McCain said he'd never in his twenty years in the Senate seen a senator denied an extra  minute or two to finish his remarks. On October 10, 2002, McCain reacted to the anti-war speech of then-Senator Mark Dayton (D-MN) by objecting to Dayton's request for unanimous consent to speak for an extra minute or two.
      Shame on McCain for his hypocrisy, which exacerbated the Franken-Lieberman brouhaha. You're dragging the Senate down, Senator.