Nice rebuttal. Now I’ve got to read Gladwell’s piece in its entirety.

permanent inures and possible, but unlikely death (either while playing, or early death). The players and fans watch despite this, even though the enjoyment they would get would be comparable (not equal, comparable) to watching elite athletes play flag football. Personally, I’d be cool if they severely limited the amount of violence (or aggressive tackling or whatever you want to call it) in the sport, but I don’t think this would be maximizing total utility for all fans. The little tiny bit of utility lost to each fan would not be offset by the prevented injuries, so it would not be cost effective or revenue maximizing for the NFL.
The difference in comparing the NFL to dog fighting or even gladiator fighting is that NFL isn’t meant to be an excessively violent sport. Injuring someone else isn’t considered a victory, the violence is just a byproduct of the goals in the game, which are to get the ball carrier on the ground. I don’t know how to reconcile boxing though, since the goal is to knock the guy out (or score more points). But perhaps the violence and brain damage are part of the reason boxing is dying and losing viewership (though that certainly isn’t the reason for horse racing dying).

I went and read the piece. Yeah, it’s doused with rhetorical flair. I don’t think I’m seeing this too clearly, I’ve developed a bit of a passion for the issue in a strong reaction to the attitude that seems widespread to me, essentially embodied by StonerHawks’ post above mine here, suggesting all risk is mitigated by the handsome compensation.

So the scope and depth of this piece you felt compelled to respond with here doesn’t feel like it’s solely out of displeasure with his journalistic spinning of a serious subject, but maybe it is. I see your point. I agree with you. I hesitate to make too much of it, in large part because it’s clear to me that simply establishing the seriousness of the long-term effects and the place that football has in the hearts of fans — from which we seem to find our grounds for defending any potential threat to its aesthetic appeal such as unsavory and restrictive safety precautions ala roughing the passer — is still very necessary. Indeed, when the league commissions a study on the subject and then is quick to undercut its own study and question the validity of the results, I feel it’s very necessary. With the popularity of football, I think it’s going to take a lot of work to create a cultural shift on this issue.

So I feel a little strange reading so much effort and energy put into this piece, here. Melodramatic, yes, but that’s what gets people’s attention.

Both amazing writers who do a vast amount of research in several different areas which culminates into a fantastic piece of writing. Unfortunately, both seem to have a hidden agenda or a point they want to make, and so often or not this introduces biases in their arguments. They’re both very smart, so I’m not sure if they know they have this bias and write to influence others, or if they are unaware that their writing contains logical fallacies and leaps of faith to tie together their logic.

Also, good fact about Gladwell, he ran a 4:02 1500m as a 16/17 year old and was a national (Canada) caliber track athlete in high school, despite his Big Bang Theory-esque looks.

I find it interesting that there was recently a big hullabaloo about keeping politics out of this blog. I privately wondered how that was possible, but then again, I’m a critical social theorist who believes that everything is political.

Anyway, it seems there’s some serious (and fascinating) politics coming out of this whole post and associated discussion, revealing a strong libertarian impulse on the parts of many of the principals in this conversation. So while this conversation has perhaps not been Political-with-a-capital-P, it has been profoundly political in a generic sense.

While I find this fascinating, I also find it problematic. Not to push the “panic” button or anything, but I do think that some of the views shared here are indicative of an unacknowledged libertarian bent (still wondering about the strange, long-running inside joke about Hasselbeck-as-Objectivist, BTW) that goes unchallenged, while I feel pretty sure that if I were to start espousing Marxian viewpoints, I would quickly be called out for that.

All that said, I hasten to add that Marx would no doubt second John’s assertion that human beings should not be analogized to dogs. That kind of rhetorical stunt is SO Adam Smith.

I thought I was reading a football blog. Somebody make a fucking dick joke, dammit!

Was more of a challenge than the inevitable comparison to soldiers.