In ESPN Magazine, Novick defends rights of athletes with prosthetic limbs
ESPN Magazine has an in-depth cover story this month about athletes with prosthetic limbs. The controversy? Whether some prosthetic limbs can confer an unfair mechanical advantage, making those athletes "superabled".
The future of sports sits in a Massachusetts basement, down the hall from a roomful of Legos. ... It's in the MIT Media Lab in Cambridge, and it's full of metal gizmos that surround an equation-covered whiteboard. A bilateral amputee professor named Hugh Herr works here. If anyone can predict what sports will look like in 2050, it's Herr, who lost his legs 26 years ago in a climbing accident. Herr wears robotic limbs with motorized ankles and insists he doesn't want his human legs back because soon they'll be archaic. "People have always thought the human body is the ideal," he says. "It's not."Soon, prosthetics wearers will be able to turn, cut and twist, motions difficult with current technology but essential in most sports. Next-gen research will shift from replacing the human leg to improving it, just as pharmaceuticals have shifted from restoring to enhancing. ... Soon there will be no need to change the rules so disabled boys can play with regular kids. Soon officials will be forced to wrestle with this question: How can able-bodied kids keep up with the superabled? And when that day comes, when the basement and the building and the boy come together, sports will change forever.
ESPN's Eric Adelson editorializes a solution - and gets support from U.S. Senate candidate Steve Novick:
Sports have always been about progress: higher, faster, stronger. Technology, though, is quickly outpacing evolution, and few know how to respond. So we draw arbitrary lines: Creatine is fine, but HGH is not. Reading lips is fine, but videotaping pregame walk-throughs is not. A titanium rod beneath the skin is fine, but a prosthetic leg is not. We want our athletes to be superior, but not so superior that our children can't grow up to be just like them. ...The truth is that it's much too late to stop the technological bus. The dictionary defines a prosthetic as "a device, either external or implanted, that substitutes for or supplements a missing or defective part of the body." By that measure, prosthetics are already used in sports. A swim cap is a prosthetic; it smooths the "defective" surface of a swimmer's head, making it more hydrodynamic. So is Speedo's new LZR Racer, which makes a swimmer more buoyant. Since the suit was introduced, records have fallen like rocks in a landslide, but the sport's governing body decided it was legal. So why, exactly, is the suit okay but Pistorius' legs are not?
The bottom line is this: Sports do not need knee-jerk segregation, they need rational and fair regulation. Every organized sport begins the same way, with the creation of rules. We then establish technological limits, as with horsepower in auto racing, stick curvature in hockey, bike weight in cycling. As sports progress, those rules are sometimes altered. The USGA, for instance, responded to advances in club technology by legalizing metal heads in the early '80s.
In Chariots of Fire, the hero comes under heavy scrutiny for using his era's version of steroids: a coach, at a time when the sport frowned upon outside assistance. So if we can adjust rules of sports to the time, why not for prosthetics? Create a panel of scientists and athletes, able-bodied and disabled, and ask them to determine what's fair.
One example: We know the maximum energy return of the human ankle, so that measurement could be the limit for the spring of a prosthetic ankle. That type of consideration is much fairer than simply locking out an entire group of athletes. "Not allowing someone to compete who is using his own power is a big thing to say," says Steve Novick, a U.S. Senate candidate from Oregon who has a prosthetic left hand. "You are denying the right to the pursuit of happiness in a fundamental way."
Also, on Friday, the Oregonian profiled the life and times of Steve Novick.
Novick's campaign and life are defined by more than his 4-foot-9 stature and the hook that serves as his left hand. He graduated from Harvard Law School at 21, and was soon handling multimillion-dollar lawsuits for the federal government. The son of back-to-the-land New Left parents, he still reflexively jumps to the side of the poor and the working class, the unions and the environment.Now he's hoping voters will buy a colorful progressive who is always ready with an acerbic quip -- and who is willing to say tax hikes have to do more than hit the wealthy but also must touch the top ranks of the middle class.
"Even if people disagree with you sometimes, they would rather have somebody who stands up for principle than somebody who is caving," he says. "We learned that with Ronald Reagan. People disagreed with Ronald Reagan on a whole host of issues but they were willing to vote for him because they thought he said what he believed, even if they thought what he believed was nuts."
Discuss.
|
May 04, 2008
Posted in in the news. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
May 4, '08
Another take on it, of course, is that Novick wants the federal government to use force to prevent private groups from setting their own rules.
Your wheelchair basketball league wants to keep Jim Bob off because Jim Bob doesn't actually use a wheelchair? Novick says the feds can force you to take him. Your wrestling league doesn't feel it's fair to send your son up against a guy with an arm literally made of steel? Tough for you - Novick will force your rules to bend to his creative interpretation of the Constitution. (So much for the right of private association.)
Looks like Novick is either overly empathic to one side over the other - gutting fairness - or he's cynically pretending to be, in order to gut the Constitution. Neither seems good.
12:55 p.m.
May 4, '08
Seems to me that the much more recent example of perennial presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich disproves Novick's assertion, particularly his last sentence.
Kucinich, of course, has spoken about having seen a UFO.
Has Novick seen Kucinich's presidential primary election polling stats... from any year?
In fact, didn't Kucinich struggle just to win his own Congressional primary race - despite having the enormous advantage of being the incumbent?
May 4, '08
Steve is right about this. His life experience gives him expertise (just as Obama can talk about being the child of a white mother and an African father, Hillary Clinton can talk about her life story, etc.).
Among other things, the Iraq war has created a huge group of amputees--many of them young and energetic. This is a very positive thing Steve has done.
1:03 p.m.
May 4, '08
Another take on it, of course, is that Novick wants the federal government to use force to prevent private groups from setting their own rules.
Easy there, Tom. Novick said no such thing. The article didn't even talk about federal regulation. The NCAA, USOC, and US Track & Field are not part of the federal government.
Novick was simply referring to what rules these private groups should set for themselves. It's possible to talk about what's morally right and wrong without talking about federal regulatory action... even for a U.S. Senate candidate.
May 4, '08
Dear Kevin,
Please go away for a while.
Sincerely,
The Associated Readers of Blue Oregon
May 4, '08
"Another take on it, of course, is that Novick wants the federal government to use force to prevent private groups from setting their own rules."
Wow. And if this private group wanted to encourage, say, dwarf throwing, does that mean Novick has no right to speak about it? Whatever happened to freedom of speech?
This is but one more example of why this country NEEDS someone like Steve Novick in the Senate. He has a perspective that others don't because of the unique and inspiring circumstances of his life.
May 4, '08
Kevin,
When a candidate's principled positions are unpopular with the ruling elite, he/she will be attacked viciously. That is Dennis Kucinich's political problem, not that he has admitted seeing something in the sky that he could not explain. You are repeating the distracting trivia perpetuated by the corporate media in order to discredit a principled candidate whose positions are much more supportive of the average US voter than those of either Clinton or Obama - or of Merkley or Novick, for that matter.
1:19 p.m.
May 4, '08
Tom,
Thanks for adding another dimension to why Novick's assertion about political support despite being perceived as a nut doesn't square with reality.
Yes, Reagan had plenty of issues which at least some of those who voted for him disagreed with to some degree. But neither side of that dynamic explains why he won or why he was re-elected.
Reagan was tagged with the "great communicator" label for very good political reasons. I submit that those reasons are why he did so well rather than the reasons Novick refers to.
3:33 p.m.
May 4, '08
Ronald Reagan was quite "sharp-tongued," acerbic, undiplomatic, confronational and so on about his opponents when he wanted to be. His success as a communicator illustrates that communication success shouldn't be flattened out into two dimensions.
3:37 p.m.
May 4, '08
Tom,
Just to clarify, what are your positions on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and on the Americans with Disabilities Act? Each of these in fairly extensive ways limit certain aspects of "freedom of association." Just curious.
3:50 p.m.
May 4, '08
Generally I have tried to stay out of the "BlueOregon editorial bias" spats. Mostly when I have weighed in it has been against conspiratorial views.
However, I have to say that I object strongly to Steve Novick's Oregonian profile being buried under another substantial story posing specific issues of interest, and not even being mentioned in the title. I don't see conspiratorial motives, but I see bad-taste-in-the-mouth results.
Like Jeff Merkley's, Novick's profile runs 4 web-page pages at the Mapes column. A significantly larger portion of the Merkley profile was quoted in the BlueOregon piece than has been quoted here from the Novick piece.
Novick's profile is newsworthy in its own right, to the same extent as Merkley's, and deserves the same treatment.
I cannot recall a time when two distinct Merkley stories have been combined in this manner. I can recall times when more than one story about each candidate has been close to the top of the list if you look at the "all posts" link for the site. There is no reason why the Novick profile should not get the equal treatment it deserves.
The Novick profile has already been delayed. Now it has been buried.
As with the delay, the burial may reflect Nick Wirth's end-of-term time struggles. I submit that the editors ought to try to work something out to give him a little help. I don't blame Nick -- but this result is not right.
Maybe I should specifically ask Charlie, as the oft identified pro-Novick guy among the editors, to repost a longer view of the Novick profile independently.
Or possibly one of the Novick-supporting contributors who has free posting access would take on that task?
3:55 p.m.
May 4, '08
That's true, Chris. Reagan put his acting skills to good use and played a charming, grandfatherly, tough, plain-spoken cowboy to good effect. Fans of the old TV and movie westerns will recognize Reagan's character as the quintessential "good guy" cowboy except that his age pretty much forced him to play a grandfatherly version of it.
I remember watching a documentary about Gorbechev's first face-to-face meeting with Reagan in Switzerland. Gorbie was absolutely smitten from the very beginning. As a soviet elite, he'd seen his share of American westerns and to have one virtually come to life right in front of him clearly had a huge impact on him. Honestly, I think that was the crux which determined the historic changes which ensued.
Novick ain't no Reagan.
3:59 p.m.
May 4, '08
Chris, since you raised the meta-issue... I'll ask you a meta-question in return.
What difference do you think that "better" treatment of the Novick profile would make? Do you think there are still BlueOregon readers who are undecided in this race? And if so, do you think that they're going to make up their mind based on the coverage here on this blog?
It's my view that BlueOregon readers are high-motivation, high-information voters -- and that nothing that happens on this blog is likely to sway their opinions... at least not 16 days out from the election. Maybe 8 or 12 months ago, but not now.
6:28 p.m.
May 4, '08
Kari,
Well, if we take that to it's logical conclusion, I suggest that all stories about the senate primary be excluded between now and the primary.
Actually, given your argument, I think possibly the three editors might confer with one another, and Nick after he resurfaces from school, and any regular contributors from whom input might be useful, to consider in what ways BlueOregon might act for the next three weeks to promote comity within its readership for the benefit of whichever candidate becomes the nominee.
And I'd suggest that one idea for comity would be to work on an appearance of relative calm & evenhandedness, given that no one's mind is going to be changed. E.g., no hyperbolic, over-the-top, purple prose headlines from editors. E.g. a joint column from the editors, if you all agree that the discourse here isn't going to change minds, encouraging contributors especially and also commenters to consider the sharp fall-off in whatever marginal utility point-scoring here ever had, to almost zero, and ask them to write with that in mind -- or forbear from writing.
And, e.g., trying to treat comparable information when coming from "In the News" comparably.
Maybe recruit LT to give a more extended exposition on her idea for resurrecting a kind of unity event around the state after the primary with which she's had experience.
Maybe issue an open column every few days soliciting ideas about how to promote unity, what we need to build up to defeat Smith that does not refer to any specific candidate, what issues will be good against Smith, and so on.
You're right, I should have already taken my own advice on this too. But thanks for asking.
(A somewhat different thought -- how about a "meta-box" of some sort that would let people communicate concerns to editors not on the main threads?)
7:10 p.m.
May 4, '08
I am pleased to see some attention being given to the ESPN Magazine story, but I echo Chris Lowe's concern about the burial of Steve's Oregonian profile.
Equal time, please.
7:49 p.m.
May 4, '08
If these kinds of stories aren't going to change minds, maybe we just need a daily recap - one for news on the Merkley campaign and one on news on the Novick campaign.
After all, there are a lot of other stories that are important that we could be talking about.
Such as an item I just wrote about how the Republicans are trying to get enough people to write in a candidate in Senate District 25 (Laurie Monnes Anderson, D, Gresham) so that they'll have someone on the ballot in November. I found out because we got a letter from the Oregon Republican Party. I'm wondering how many other districts around the state this could be happening in. This could really affect how we allocate resources like volunteers and money around the state. It's not as big of a deal here in Gresham, as we're already working both house districts and can drop lit for Laurie at the same time. But I'm sure it makes a big difference to her campaign. And it could be a big deal if they're doing it in other districts.
8:22 p.m.
May 4, '08
Jenni,
Submit it as a guest column. Seriously, how many times have we all see Kari practically beg those who complain about the coverage here to submit something?
8:23 p.m.
May 4, '08
I suggest that all stories about the senate primary be excluded between now and the primary.
That, of course, is silly. This is a "water cooler" around which Oregon activists gather to talk politics. Excluding the top political race in the state would defeat the entire purpose of the site.
Gee, let's take that argument all the way - no campaign stories on the site!
Yeah. OK.
We're finishing up the big ol' BlueOregon re-engineering project - and I think y'all are going to be very happy with the changes. For example, any registered user will be able to post in-the-news items. Yay!
We'll be launching right after the primary. In part due to the programming schedule, and in part because I don't want any conspiracy theorists imagining why we're overhauling the site while ballots are out.
Seriously, if the conspiracy theorists are right, and I've been practicing editorial witchcraft upon our sheep-like readers, we should expect to find that a good 80% or more of our readers are supporting Merkley in the primary. At least 60%, right?
Guess we'll just have to wait and see on that straw poll, eh?
8:28 p.m.
May 4, '08
Kevin:
I already had written it up on my blog (so it wouldn't fit in the rules of being a unique posting to here), but I'd sent in something about it so we could at least get an elsewhere or some other such type of posting. I don't care if all the discussion gets made here or there, just that people be made aware of it.
I also just heard there are people trying to get Ron Saxton as a write-in for AG.
8:36 p.m.
May 4, '08
"What difference do you think that "better" treatment of the Novick profile would make?"
It might indicate that the criticisms being lodged across the blogosphere about the use of Blue Oregon as a campaign base for Mandate Media clients is unfounded, for one thing. It would indicate that THE feature profile piece in the state paper of record for one major candidate, is as newsworthy as the same item for the other major candidate.
9:01 p.m.
May 4, '08
:::rolls eyes:::
Without exception I have not read, heard or seen any such criticism from anyone who isn't a Novick supporter.
The profound irony is that most of those bitching the loudest about wanting parity on this blog don't practice anything close to parity on their own blogs.
Flaming hypocrites... They don't actually want parity or even-handedness or however they choose to couch it. If they did then they'd walk the walk rather than throw temper tantrum after temper tantrum over here.
Look, I'd be the first to conceed that I'm not even-handed on my blog. But I'd also be the first to point out that I'm not bitching about other blogs (bitching ON THOSE BLOGS) not being even-handed.
And yes, I could easily cite a list of pro-Merkley issues which I thought deserved a post over here but which didn't get anything. Such as another union endorsing Merkley recently.
But again... I'm not the one bitching about it incessantly. That is coming 100% from a very small group of Novick supporters.
I don't run this blog and whether I like every decision made here or not, the bottom line is that I don't run this blog and, having my own blog, have ZERO legitimacy to bitch about how this blog or any other blog not owned by me is run.
9:02 p.m.
May 4, '08
"Without exception I have not read, heard or seen any such criticism from anyone who isn't a Novick supporter. "
Really? All three SoS candidates back Novick?
9:12 p.m.
May 4, '08
"ZERO legitimacy to bitch about how this blog or any other blog not owned by me is run."
it's not about how it's being run per se, but how it's being run in contradiction to its own stated principles and rules. If BlueO wants to take the position that they'd like to see Jeff Merkley win the primary, giving Jeff a leg up is in perfect keeping with that mission. But that's not BlueO's stated mission.
You've already got an account at LO; anytime you want to come over and write your very own diary about how biased it is, you go right ahead. How's that for democracy of the blogosphere?
9:18 p.m.
May 4, '08
you really don't get it, do you...
May 4, '08
"The profound irony is that most of those bitching the loudest about wanting parity on this blog don't practice anything close to parity on their own blogs. Flaming hypocrites..."
That's just stupid.
Blogs written by individuals like TJ's and many others, represent the opinions of those individuals and their biases.
But that's not what BlueOregon is, it it?
It claims to be a progressive "water cooler," not a typical blog that represent the views of one, two or three authors.
In fact BlueOregon's credibility is built largely on the fact that it does not simply represent the views and biases of one, two or three authors, but of a larger progressive community represented by a large and varying group of contributors.
Those bylined contributions by that group are not the issue here, and they never have been.
This issue arises from the "in the news" and "elsewhere" posts. Because these posts are not bylined they represent "BlueOregon," the water cooler.
When those "in the news" and "elsewhere" pieces contain a striking bias -- (ie) posting every anti-Novick piece that surfaced and ignoring anything that reflected poorly on Merkley-- "progressives" who feel their "water cooler" has chosen sides get a little pissed.
People react to the bias in the supposedly neutral non-bylined BlueOregon posts the same way they would if the DPO took sides in a primary.
I must say, the choices for "in the news" and "elsewhere" posts have been a lot more fair and a lot less biased recently, so I believe the complaints and the negative press played an important role here.
you really don't get it, do you...
12:21 a.m.
May 5, '08
It did get a lot better, then recently sloppy again...
12:31 a.m.
May 5, '08
Quoth Kari:
Yes, of course. It was a reductio ad absurdum of your own silly argument. It was also obviously tongue in cheek, in the context of the rest of what I wrote. Your choice to treat it as serious and ignore the serious parts of my post, about using BlueOregon as tool to build comity and unity starting now, is kind of troubling.
The one specific aspect of your rebuild that you mention, direct submission of in the news items, sounds good.
The fact remains that this and any other aspects apparently aren't going to be implemented until after the primary. So they don't address problems now. While it seems that actually business work at Mandate hasn't entirely prevented work on this "re-engineering project," perhaps actually implementing it would take up too much time while work for primary campaigns is going on.
Let's assume that's the case. That's why I suggested some other steps that could be taken now to try to change the pitiful culture we've developed around here & work toward having our "water cooler" be a little more constructive for the long run. They wouldn't require a concerted time commitment. They were serious suggestions, and it bothers me that your only response is to evade them.
<hr/>Kevin, the other blogs you are talking about don't hold themselves out to be a general "water cooler," and they pretty much have single owners.
I don't have a problem about Kari, or Jeff, or Charlie having distinct opinions and commitments. The demands taht they be somehow neutral or objective or whatever are dumb and I'd rather have their opinions and reasoning (though not the misleading headlines in spinning purple prose of which Kari is fond). Likewise I like it that the regular contributors have viewpoints.
But BlueOregon also holds itself out to be something different than just another blog reflecting its owner's viewpoint. The defense against the charges of bias, which don't only come from Novick people who comment here (they've been in the print media, and they came from Hillary supporters too, in which case there was a response for which there is no comparable action regarding the senate primary), has also been exactly that this blog is different, that no one person actually controls it and that it does not have a single, unified collective viewpoint.
I accept that, and I accept and favor the watercooler idea. But the claim to be living up to those ideals and different status can't be defended by saying "all blogs have a viewpoint."
My concern is not about journalistic standards that are irrelevant to blogs.
My concern is about the intellectual / political community of the water cooler, and about how the way we interact here fits into building progressive strength after the primary.
If Kari's right that it doesn't matter, why is it so hard to contemplate doing some things now that would work toward strengthening the quality of community and strengthening our ability to cooperate moving forward toward November?
I think we all need to get off the hamster wheel, but I think some people in this open but not equal set-up have more purchase to slow it down than others. Hence my appeal to them, and to contributors like yourself.
The unresponsiveness to the suggestions leaves open the possibility that Kari doesn't really believe what he wrote about things published here being unlikely to change minds. Which would be too bad, because it's probably true. But if he really does believe it, and Jeff and Charlie agree, then why not act like that's the case and take some steps to improve the quality of discussion and the utility of the discussions around the water cooler for the ends we share in November?
2:04 a.m.
May 5, '08
I'm one of those "bitching" and I do run a blog. And anyone is welcome to post there on the blog and their post automatically hits the front page. And it'll typically stay up as the first post for at least a day, since I don't post every day.
The only posts I've ever pulled from the front were those that were spam (no, I don't need Viagra, I'm not going to help you sell your house, etc.).
There's been an anti-Obama post on the front page. There's a candidate who posts regularly who is running against someone I support. I post about a variety of topics, from Democratic Party events to something in the news, to what's happening in east county. I've spent very little of my posting time on the site saying anything about the U.S. Senate race.
2:22 a.m.
May 5, '08
Chris, please do not take my non-responsiveness as a disregard for your ideas.
Rather, I've got better things to do than to engage in yet another tedious meta-conversation. Your comments are better and more constructive than most, but you'll note that it didn't take long for the same ol' meta-bullshit to show up.
One other note: You should not assume that the sum total of all conversations amongst the editors and our contributors happens through posts and comments here on the blog. In fact, there's a LOT of internal discussion about how to run things around the water cooler - including many of the topics that you suggest we hash out in public.
There are about a dozen people who insist on spending BlueOregon's bandwidth talking about the management of the blog. But most of our readers would rather discuss Oregon politics.
I know that because I hear every day from our otherwise-silent readers - in person and via email - about how tired most of them are with the meta-chatter.
We're not perfect, and we don't pretend to be. Not every mistake is part of some malicious conspiracy. And if it were, our readers aren't that stupid.
I'm really baffled by the low opinion that some many of these meta-critics have of our readers.
May 5, '08
When those "in the news" and "elsewhere" pieces contain a striking bias -- (ie) posting every anti-Novick piece that surfaced and ignoring anything that reflected poorly on Merkley-- "progressives" who feel their "water cooler" has chosen sides get a little pissed.
So then stop reading it.
All this BS about how the blog is run is stupid. If you don't like it, don't read it. Or better yet, make your own blog readable so that more people will show up and read it.
The solution is very simple.
8:32 a.m.
May 5, '08
"I know that because I hear every day from our otherwise-silent readers - in person and via email - about how tired most of them are with the meta-chatter."
Then don't you think it might be wise to actually do something about it, instead of remaining overtly partisan while claiming otherwise?
May 5, '08
"I'm really baffled by the low opinion that some many of these meta-critics have of our readers"
yes, kari, it's not about the website, it's about your readers.
You were spinning when you came out of the womb, weren't you?
As I said, BlueOregon has tended to the very obvious bias in which non-bylined "in the news" and elsewhere' pieces it chooses.
I got into this discussion to knock down the moronic point kevin tried to make comparing blogs by a single individual to a "water cooler" blog like BlueOregon.
And rather than simply stop reading, concerned readers complained enough to generate press attention and force change. I think that's a much better option.
P.S. Love you Barbecue sauce, masterpiece.
May 5, '08
" But most of our readers would rather discuss Oregon politics."
Yes, Kari, we have argued about many things, but on this one you are RIGHT ON!
It will be very interesting on May 21 to see if the discussion is about election results (as it should be) or if someone is sniping because an article about one set of election results (or one person's election night speech) is placed on Blue Oregon above another ("more worthy" ?)speech or set of results.
Take it from someone who has spent a lot of years working with kids in various capacities. Certain people here are doing less to advance the candidate(s) they supposedly back than they are just appearing to be juvenile.
Yesterday at a BBQ I was talking with 2 women---an older generation than mine, not sure of their party registration except that one of them is for sure not a Republican. The other one says it is time for Gordon Smith to be gone, while the first one isn't sure about that but by golly he deserves a strongly contested election. Neither could name the Democratic candidates for US Senate, but one said (when told one candidate is the Speaker of the House) that it might be a good idea for the current Speaker of the House to run against the former St. Sen. President because there goes the "not experienced" argument and they would have to debate real issues.
For anyone of any persuasion who thinks blogs decide elections, these 2 women remember WWII. That means 2 things are probably true of them: Likely to vote in every election (one had already mailed her ballot) Unlikely to be bloggers.
The great thing about May 21 to me will be that comments like "but the other primary campaign...." will be past the sell-by date and decidedly stale.
10:10 a.m.
May 5, '08
The blog envy is getting pretty deep around here.
May 5, '08
Tom Cox:
Another take on it, of course, is that Novick wants the federal government to use force to prevent private groups from setting their own rules.
Daniel Spiro:
Wow. And if this private group wanted to encourage, say, dwarf throwing, does that mean Novick has no right to speak about it? Whatever happened to freedom of speech?
Bob T:
No one is saying that he can't speak about it. But his solution (using the State, if that's what he's advocating) is an issue. After all, when it was pointed out in another article that Senator Coburn once advocated that people performing abortions should be executed, I heard no one on this blog defend Coburn in the same way. That's because the issue was what he was advocating, which is opposed by more than just the pro-choice side.
As for dwarf-tossing (a popular activity on Australia for one), that would be okay so long as the tossed dwarves are volunteers like they are in Australia (if they still do it there). I recall one of them saying afterwards that he had a good time there. What's it to you?
Daniel Spiro:
This is but one more example of why this country NEEDS someone like Steve Novick in the Senate.
Bob T:
What a hoot! Even if one agrees that using the State to force the issue, this is hardly the kind of issue I'd use on a list of qualifications for service in the US Senate.
Daniel Spiro:
He has a perspective that others don't because of the unique and inspiring circumstances of his life.
Bob T:
I'll believe that when you support a similarly handicapped conservative Republican.
Bob Tiernan
10:31 a.m.
May 5, '08
If winning 50% of the vote in a five-way race is what you mean by "just", I guess you're right. His margin over the closest (fairly well-funded) contender was 15%. Joe Cimperman, a Cleveland City Councilman, was supported by the mayor, the local Democratic party establishment, and the Plain-Dealer. His margin of victory was less than it had been in previous contests, but this was the first time he had any serious challengers in seven elections.
Don't you do any research at all before you make these kinds of assertions?
May 5, '08
Chris Lowe:
Tom [Cox],
Just to clarify, what are your positions on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and on the Americans with Disabilities Act? Each of these in fairly extensive ways limit certain aspects of "freedom of association." Just curious.
Bob T:
No time for me to go into how the ADA has gone way beyond what it should have been limited to (access to real public places like courthouses, city halls, the US Senate chamber, and so on), but I hope you're not saying that the Casey Martin case was a great victory for liberty, and that this is the next step. Fact is the government had no business in that one (read Scalia's dissent) any more than it would in forcing major league baseball teams to sign one-legged or 600-pound players just to "make it fair". Such individuals can already be signed if they can compete. Since the odds are that they can't, they aren't. What will you advocate--that when a one-legged batter comes up that three fielders must leave the field and that no fielder can go after a hit ball until the ump counts to five?
Admittedly in this case (if I'm reading this correctly) it's about an advantage a prosthetic gives an athlete, rather than a handicap. Even so, the rules of the sports organization might properly be allowed to deal with this.
Bob Tiernan
12:41 p.m.
May 5, '08
Bob, Tom Cox led this discussion off with an objection to Steve Novick cast in very broad terms.