Christl blog : contentious

[Harlan Huckleby]

but he can certainly tarnish the reputation of his employer, and possibly kill someone in the process.

Whether Robinson gets drunk and makes a fool or murderer of himself has nothing to do whether he plays football.

Yes, Thompson has to weigh the risk of tarnishing the reputation of the Packers. And he has done that.

[mraynrand]

The Packers did not endanger society by giving him a job.

What is to become of these people when they get out? Should they go on public assistance? Should they be refused jobs on moral grounds? What morality is that?

It's a practical question, not a moral one.

The Packers may have endangered THEIR community by giving him a job in Green Bay. But you're right, they may have done no worse than him being hired anywhere else. Except that, had he not been able to get a job, he may have reflected that he needed to get his life in order.

The people who are imprisoned for DUI related crimes should have to demonstrate some change in behavior before being trusted at particular jobs, especially high profile or high risk jobs (how eager would you be to rehire the Exxon Valdez captain or the Surgeon who was in jail for his/her 5h DUI). They have to prove themselves, but they shouldn'e be ostracised.

It' both a practical and a moral question. I think the Packers failed on the moral question to address a practical quesion. And they may have enabled a drunk to continue his self-destructive, and potentially community-destructive ways.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Except that, had he not been able to get a job, he may have reflected that he needed to get his life in order.

Ya. That'd work.

And they may have enabled a drunk to continue his self-destructive, and potentially community-destructive ways.

Have you ever been addicted to anything? Well, other than PackerRats, but I guess that habit is bad enough.

Addicts are not enabled by having a job. And the public nature of this particular job has only put him in a fishbowl of public condemnation.

[mraynrand]

Whether Robinson gets drunk and makes a fool or murderer of himself has nothing to do whether he plays football.

Fine. But what difference does that make? This issue is really more about what the Green Bay Packers were willing to tolerate. They hired a guy who has not demonstrated that he's changed his reckless and self-destructive behavior. And for what? A few more yards on kickoff? A couple of third down conversions?

[mraynrand]

Addicts are not enabled by having a job.

They're enabled by not suffering any consequences for their destructive behavior.

[Harlan Huckleby]

They're enabled by not suffering any consequences for their destructive behavior.

Addicts almost always suffer consequences. I guess Robinson's antics have cost him about $10M. In fact, it may have cost him his livelyhood completely. And public humiliation.

Threat of consequences does not deter addicts.

[pbmax]

Addicts are not enabled by having a job.

They're enabled by not suffering any consequences for their destructive behavior.

While I wish Robinson had not been signed (I wish the Packers were not in the position to need him, mainly), this statement that Robinson has suffered no consequences show a tremendous lack of sense.

Do you think a guy drinking himself to Bolivia (thank you Mike Tyson) has never suffered? Are there only two types of suffering; jail time and poverty?

C'mon.

[mraynrand]

They're enabled by not suffering any consequences for their destructive behavior.

Addicts almost always suffer consequences. I guess Robinson's antics have cost him about $10M. In fact, it may have cost him his livelyhood completely. And public humiliation.

Threat of consequences does not deter addicts.

I disagree. Ask Brett what he did after Diana told him to stop drinking or lose his family. Perhaps they seldom or rarely work, or at least work less often than we'd like, but what, other than the threat of undesireable consequences, leads addicts to face their disease and get help? And would you argue that an addict, in denial, and aided by enablers who won't confront him/her, is MORE likely to reform than an addict confronted with consequences for his/her actions?

[Terry]

Except that, had he not been able to get a job, he may have reflected that he needed to get his life in order.

Yes, he might have. And he might have gotten depressed and taken up drinking again.

If your theories on punishing people so they can reflect on their ways had any basis in reality, prisons would be churning out model citizens.

It sounds more to me like the typical uninformed head trip theory that so many people like to hang on to in spite of all evidence in reality. The world always has plenty of such people around.

The people who are imprisoned for DUI related crimes should have to demonstrate some change in behavior before being trusted at particular jobs, especially high profile or high risk jobs (how eager would you be to rehire the Exxon Valdez captain or the Surgeon who was in jail for his/her 5h DUI). They have to prove themselves, but they shouldn'e be ostracised.

Well, how exactly does an unemployed person prove himself when he sits at home and has negligible contact with the surrounding community?

And, considering that you for focussing in that statement on high risk jobs, I'm really curious how dangerous a drunken WR is to the community at large.

As for high profile jobs, what difference does that make?

What I hear in all this, between the lines, is the word "punishment". You can't bring yourself to say that an offender like KR should never get another job, live his life out on the streets among the homeless and end up in a gutter. What the hell does "high profile" mean? In reality, better paying jobs tend to have higher profiles - it almost sounds to me that you'd like to see him hired as a dishwasher until such time as people who are paying no attention to him whatsoever are convinced that he's clean. Again, the whole thing reeks of "punishment".

The plain simple reality, regardless of all this rationalizing, is that people who don't want to hire or be associated with three-time losers always feel that way, no matter how much time as passed. And other people, who aren't quite so obsessed with how others live their lives, are more inclined to look past one's offenses and give them another shot, regardless of how much time has passed and regardless of whether it's a second chance or a third chance or a tenth chance.

[mraynrand]

Terry:

I don't think you enderstand what I mean by someone being enabled. I mean that they are not pressured or forced in any way to change their behavior. Sure, it's possible that someone who is confronted will lash back with hostility, and perhaps even get worse - if you've ever confronted an alcoholic, you'd know this does happen. But, lack of confrontation will result in no changes, good or bad. Haven't you ever hear the old saw that 'first you have to recognize that you have a problem.' If people treat you as though you have no problem, you're far less likely to address the problem. This is simple human nature, and applies to all types of behaviors.

My point was not that Robinson should be banned, but that he has to demonstrate some willingness to change his ways. No, he's not a threat to harm society in his job as a wide receiver. That was a pretty damn lame comment. But he is a threat to society if he's allowed to continue his current behavior pattern. And coddling him will just guarantee more of the same.

Also, you said the whole thing reeks of Punishment. I couldn't agree more. He's done some things for which he should be punished. If that means working as a dishwasher for a year to prove he's not a threat to society, so be it. He should have to re-earn what he threw away.

[Harlan Huckleby]

My point was not that Robinson should be banned, but that he has to demonstrate some willingness to change his ways.

He's done that. In fact, he won a couple good citzenship awards in minnesota a year ago, celebrating his successful recovery. Didn't stick, had another relapse.

Regarding your example of Brett Favre as model for addiction recovery: Yes, I agree that an addict has to face negative realities before they change. Brett would have been out of NFL without Vicodin detox. His wife threatened to leave him if he didn't stop the carousing. My point is that most addicts have already faced the abyss. Many lose their families and other relationships. It takes support, and sometimes multiple tries to kick hardcore addiction.

Your theory that addicts will pull themselves up by their bootstraps if their lives are made more miserable does not hold in most cases. You are applying a philosphy to a situation where it generally doesn't work.

[Terry]

I don't think you enderstand what I mean by someone being enabled. I mean that they are not pressured or forced in any way to change their behavior. Sure, it's possible that someone who is confronted will lash back with hostility, and perhaps even get worse - if you've ever confronted an alcoholic, you'd know this does happen. But, lack of confrontation will result in no changes, good or bad. Haven't you ever hear the old saw that 'first you have to recognize that you have a problem.' If people treat you as though you have no problem, you're far less likely to address the problem. This is simple human nature, and applies to all types of behaviors.

It sounds like you're saying that applying pressure won't work (though you hedge your words on that one) and that not applying pressure won't work.

I would have to agree. There's very little that others can do to bring about change in a person. If anything. And it's a very difficult thing for people to change period. I suppose that's why it rarely happens - people rarely change.

When change does take place, I agree that it initiates from within the person (though that person him/herself may perceive it as an external circumstance). And in that case, other people can help. First and foremost, that recognition that you speak of (you first have to recognize that you have a problem) is exactly that - HE has to recognize it, not anyone else - including YOU. And trust me - you can be sure he recognizes it. Losing ten million dollars is bound to make anyone recognize that there is a problem. Turning that recognition into practical action may take time, but you can be damned sure the recognition is there. None of it involves you or me.

Our disagreement is in the 'help' that others can provide to someone trying to change. You seem to believe that the whip constitutes help. I disagree.

My point was not that Robinson should be banned, but that he has to demonstrate some willingness to change his ways. No, he's not a threat to harm society in his job as a wide receiver. That was a pretty damn lame comment. But he is a threat to society if he's allowed to continue his current behavior pattern. And coddling him will just guarantee more of the same.

This demonstration (to YOU) of willingness to change - can you tell me in quite tangible terms what this translates to exactly and what exactly he is supposed to be doing concurrently? Life goes on while one changes. If your point is that he would be well off checking into the Betty Ford clinic before accepting any other job offers, I would say you have a point. However, the key phrase here is "he would be better off" - what I miss from your tone is any sense that you have any feelings whatsoever about his welfare.

As for the lame comment that he's not a threat to society as a WR, are you tacitly admitting that the comments about "high-risk" jobs were non-sequitors and that you added them to just add colour to your rhetoric? Because if your 'high-risk' rhetoric had any practical purpose whatsoever, then it wasn't a lame comment at all, but rather very much relevant and to the point.

Also, you said the whole thing reeks of Punishment. I couldn't agree more. He's done some things for which he should be punished. If that means working as a dishwasher for a year to prove he's not a threat to society, so be it. He should have to re-earn what he threw away.

Well, mraynrand, it is not YOUR job to be concerned with his punishments - and to the extent that you are, it reveals more about you than about anyone else. This is a free society and there are those appointed to deal with punishment. If you want to study a society in which the entire community is deeply involved in punishment, I suggest you look to China and analyze the picture there. It's not a pretty picture. THAT is my problem with members of the community concerning themselves overly much with the behaviour and punishment of other people.

Furthermore, those agencies concerned with punishment are - or should be - concerned with protecting the rest of us. The reason you put a mugger in jail is to get him off the streets. To the extent that one is concerned with inflicting pain upon wrong doers for the sake of it, such a person has a troubling flaw in their psyche.

The logic of working as a dishwasher while he proves that he's a change person fails all logic. He can work as a WR to prove the same thing. And if he's not changed, his danger to himself and to others is precisely the same regardless of which establishment he works in.

The statement about having to re-earn what he threw away is really weird. Uh.... no he doesn't have to, nor 'should' he. That's his business, mraynrand, not your's.

As an aside, regarding the absence of the tendency to change in human nature, this is especially true if the disease affects any number of people en masse. They they will never change until their own behaviour leads to disaster - and only disaster for them, not for anyone else, which they won't care about.

In fact, he won a couple good citzenship awards in minnesota a year ago, celebrating his successful recovery.

I don't think this impresses mraynrand. I get the impression that mraynrand believes that Koren Robinson must suffer as part of his penance. To be fair, I do understand this attitude - it's a gut feeling in the human ego which is quite natural. But it's a counter productive impulse.

[mraynrand]

I think I can simplify this: If a guy was drunk and fled the police (IF), then I think he ought to be punished and have to keep his nose clean for a while before he's allowed special priviledges, such as playing for the Green Bay Packers. Do you think otherwise?

[Rastak]

I think I can simplify this: If a guy was drunk and fled the police (IF), then I think he ought to be punished and have to keep his nose clean for a while before he's allowed special priviledges, such as playing for the Green Bay Packers. Do you think otherwise?

I completely agree. It's not that they signed him, it's that he needs to take his medicine and get cleaned up THEN he can worry about an NFL career....
In fact, TT was smart to give the guy a call, say we'll be here when this mess is made right and you are clean. He wasn't smart, in my opinion, to then sign him immediately. That's my opinion and not as a football fan but as a person.

If the judge has any brains he'll take care of this shortly. Teach him what happens when you make the sort of choices he apparently routinely makes.

[Terry]

I think I can simplify this: If a guy was drunk and fled the police (IF), then I think he ought to be punished and have to keep his nose clean for a while before he's allowed special priviledges, such as playing for the Green Bay Packers. Do you think otherwise?

I agree with that as you stated it.

My quibble is with characterizing playing with the Packers as a privilege.

There's no question that fleeing the police at 100 mph will be taken very seriously by the police. Drinking certainly compounds the problem immensely. And, yes, keeping his nose clean is very important and should be monitored as much as can be realistically expected by overtaxed law enforement personnel. I would think he would be at least obligated to attend treatment as a condition of parole. (I'm surprised if he wasn't, but I've never heard that he was sentenced to rehab the way Sandra Bullock was in "28 Days" - with Koren's history, I'm surprised that he wasn't minimally required to at least that much - and more, as a matter of fact.)

I also think that if he's not in jail, there is no reason he shouldn't be permitted to pursue his career, which after all is how he makes his living.

I make my living, what there is of it, through my computer. It would seem very odd to me in similar circumstances if, having been released on parole, if the authorities came in and took away the computer. There's something about that that would seem gratuitously Draconian to me.

But I'll grant you this - it's novel and creative. I can see a case being built that it would be productive. But I don't think it would be right to single out a particular offender for a punishment that is not otherwise part of the methodology of law enforcement in such cases.

I have no problem with whatever the courts decide to do in this case.