Create Account

Or log in with Facebook


Log in

Or log in with Facebook

A Blurb on Ben

A Blurb on Ben

Hi Lounge. It’s me Asshalo. After a long haitus, I have returned as an amateur cultural theorist in order to weigh in on the Roethlisberger case.

You may ask, “What does this have to do with sports or even the Packers?”

The truth is it does not directly relate to either, so much as allow me to vent my opinions on the cultural forces that underlie how society judges athletes.

First, there have been a number of people who have already expressed doubts as to whether Roethlisberger sexually assaulted the female victim.

Consider this quote from ESPN:

"A doctor who examined [the victim] at a nearby emergency room discovered a cut, bruises and vaginal bleeding but could not say if she was raped. And while some DNA was found, there was not enough to determine whom it belonged to.”

We do know Roethlisberger fed an underage college student shots, followed her into a dark hallway escorted by his bodyguard, and entered a bathroom with her. Can we agree injuries of this nature at the very least convey a struggle of a sexual nature occurred? Based on witness reports wouldn't it also be reasonable to assume Ben and the victim were alone in the bathroom? You do the math.

Although DNA evidence is "inconclusive" (which I will get to later), we do know the witness did not want to testify at trial, something that would be vital to a guilty plea if only Roethlisberger and she entered the bathroom. Due to the traumatic and embarrassing nature of the crime, it is not uncommon with victims of sexual assault to forgo testifying at trial. Do any of us honestly believe Roethlisberger gets acquitted if the victim agrees to testify?

Alas, Roethlisberger is not going to get charged criminally. But I find it interesting to wonder how society will judge Ben? So far media criticism has largely centered not on whether Ben committed the crime or not, but that he let down his team by putting himself in an unfavorable position in the first place. It won’t be the first time sports has simultaneous highlighted and ignored the social issues facing its athletes.

Here are just a few factors to consider:

1.) Roethlisberger is White-- I can hear critics already. But before you start, answer this question: All else equal, do you think a black man would be given the same due process under our law that a white man would given the facts of this case? History would say probably not. Would the fans and the media judge Roethlisberger differently if he were black? The Kobe Bryant case is almost identical to this one, except with Roethlisberger the dominant criticism is how he let down his teammates by putting himself in an unfavorable position—what happened to the victim here? Accuse me of selective memory, but I remember the resentment against Bryant being much more intense  than  against Roethlisberger.

2.) Roethlisberger is an investment— The NFL and the media have a lot invested in the brand that is Roethlisberger. Mike Florio accused ESPN of dragging their feet during the first sexual assault story, but he made the mistake of stopping at the story’s break. Would we (the fans and especially the media and the NFL) judge Ben differently if he played a less important position (long snapper, punter)? A less important sport? If he weren’t one of the highest paid players in the league? If he hadn’t won two Super Bowls?

3.) Sexual Assault is invisible- Yes this sounds like a blurb out of “The Accused”, but the phrase is a cliché for a reason. Getting an accurate measurement of rape and sexual assault is already extremely difficult. Again, due to the traumatic nature of the crime, many victims do not want to face the psychological torment of reliving the assault publicly. Can we agree this would be especially intense considering Roethlisberger’s fame?

Feel free to answer these questions. However, the truth is we will not know whether Roethlisberger truly committed sexual assault this year or in 2008 and many will have their reservations. At the very least, the material facts related to a very serious crime are being marginalized by forces that not acting in the best interest of the victim or justice.

  • Like Like
  • 0 points

Fan friendly comments only: off Comments (34) This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.

Anita's picture

Thank you, Aaron Rodgers. You're younger, better looking, and probably have just as many opportunities to score off the field that this douchebag does. However, you obviously have your brain located between your ears and realize that you are a public figure, team leader and need to act accordingly. Oh sure, I'm sure you're not a choir boy, but at least you're not making headlines for all the wrong reasons, like feeding underage women shots of alcohol until they can't stand up, and then following them into a public bathroom (YUCK) for sex. Low class doesn't even begin to describe Big Ben.

RonLC's picture

Has anyone got more info on Ben's strange twitters? It sounds to me like he's trying to get the Commish down there to draw a blood sample personally. I guess those concussions are having an impact.

PackersRS's picture

Asshalo, you cannot jump to conclusions on this case, because every info you got is from the media, probably already altered with personal opinion.

She went with him to the bathroom. Did she go by her will?

She had bruises that could not be confirmed as [email protected]. A friend of mine once broke his d*ck having sex. Could be that the bruises were result of rough sex, and not [email protected]?

"Again, due to the traumatic nature of the crime, many victims do not want to face the psychological torment of reliving the assault publicly." But it had already come out to public! She's still going to have to face it every day, the media is still going to report it, her peers are still going to comment it...

People are acting like the powers that be are covering this up, because of his influence.

Couldn't it be, just for a second, that she had sex with him, influenced by who he is, and regreted it later? And could be an even darker reasoning. Money, publicity...

People in charge of prosecuting, charging, investigating and judging this kind of happenings exist for a reason. I'm not saying that they're perfect, but they're far more qualified than someone who gets the info from an indirect source and goes on to make judgments based on that and past behavior...

(the asteriscs and @ are because apparently "my comment seem a bit spammy...")

Anne's picture

Oh Ben, just go ride your motorcycle without a helmet....

Asshalo's picture

Thanks for the comments! I knew this had something to do with Green Bay

jerseypackfan's picture

After watching Ben Roethlisberger apologize yesterday. I noticed two things... Did he copy Tiger Woods apology speech and who told him mullets were making a comeback?

FITZCORE1252's picture

Do I think Ben raped that girl, NO WAY. Doesn't need to. Guaranteed he could've been with any of a # of girls there, just the way it is for superstars, love it or hate it. Do I think something happened and this girl was later ashamed or thought she could profit from it, ABSOLUTELY. Either way, there is not enough evidence to bring him up on charges, thus, THE CAT IS INNOCENT.

One thing can't be disputed, Ben is an absolute Idiot wrapped in a Moron to put himself in a situation like that after "Tahoe". I hope he gets suspended, I fully expect him to. We'll see if the leagues' 'conduct policy' applies to all. We're watching Rog.


Asshalo's picture

So it is absolutely true that Roethlisberger did not commit rape because the victim is a slut? Glad you did your homework Fitzy.

FITZCORE1252's picture

Don't put words in my mouth, Ass.

Where did I call the girl a "slut"?

"Do I think Ben raped that girl, NO WAY", is actually what I said. I don't know how to be any more clear that the statement is "just my opinion" (Oh, the authorities look like they're leaning that way too, does that count for anything?)!? Do you need me to give you a little "IMHO" from now on? I thought we were past that on this blog.

Don't twist my take dude, because that's just what it is... MY TAKE.

Where do you get off calling this chick a victim? What "homework" have you done to substantiate that distinction. Because, last I saw, Ben is free and clear, so one could make the case HE is the victim (getting drug through the mud on unsubstantiated claims)... if you have different info, please enlighten me.

FYI - Girls can be every bit as devious, conniving, and scandalous as guys. Why don't you do a little "homework", tell me the % of rape claims in the US that are thrown out or proven to be flat out LIES (actually a well documented problem). This should get you started:

Anybody that is "C-O-N-V-I-C-T-E-D" of rape should be castrated "IMHO", this matter is actually quite near to my heart. But, this is a classic case of a young broad that got liquored up, saw a superstar, had a chance to be with said superstar, jumped all over it, regretted it, thought about cashing in on it, after some time passed realized she had nothing (Except some remnants from a rough session, nothing out of the ordinary for some. Oh, and didn't want to press charges, did you forget that?) and is now left with nothing but being known as "the chick that did Ben in the bathroom"... "IMHO".


Asshalo's picture

"Do I think something happened and this girl was later ashamed or thought she could profit from it, ABSOLUTELY."

Sorry, you think she's a gold digging slut. I'm not even going to dignify that claim given the facts of the case. How about you get your information and statistics from public health outlets, like a women's clinic? You have no other evidence to suggest that other than that Roethlisberger is famous.

The girl was bleeding from her vagina with cuts and bruises all over the area. That's why I call her a victim. Male DNA was found it's just they cannot conclude it was Roethlisberger (something prosecutors can rarely do off DNA evidence). Eye witnesses have said Roethlisberger followered her into the bathroom which his body guard blocked off. So you're insinuating this female mutilated her genitals for money. I'm not sure you even read my post.

If she testifies at trial, she has to listen to the defense calling her a gold digging slut (and have her name drug through the mud by you and others), meanwhile having to recount the assault for the media and nation to witness. Again, sexual assault is rarely proven through DNA evidence and almost always requires witness testimony which I don't blame her for forgoing. Since people only saw them go into the bathroom, she would need to speak up.

If it were as simple as you're saying the DA wouldn't have given the details he gave and Roethlisberger wouldn't have a suspension coming up.

Asshalo's picture

Further, even if she does inflict those injuries herself, you still have to deal with the fact that male DNA was found on her.

PackersRS's picture

So, it's IMPOSSIBLE that in a consensual sexual act there might be some injuries? Heard of "rough sex"? Not to enter the hypothesis that she actually did it herself.

And moreso, even if they find that the semen is his, it doesn't prove anything other than that they had sex. And even that can't be proven.

It's a though case to make, with only that. There might've had some injuries to her body, you know, from the fight that she had to stop him from r*ping her (can't say freaking r*pe in here).

No, but she was too drunk to fight. And she was sober enough to actually GO to the bathroom? Or was she dragged? Why no evidence of that?

All I'm saying, this is not clear. Nobody can deny that it COULD'VE been something other than r*pe. And according to the law, that's all that takes, doubt.

PackersRS's picture

IMHO the only case they could make is that she was a minor, that he himself gave her the beer, and that she wasn't in her best judgment to decide wheter or not to have sex with him. They might get a very purist jury...

But they can't portrait, without reasonable doubt, that it was "r*pe", as in the violent, unconsensual act of sex. Only unconsensual, as in "she was drunk and was a minor, so she didn't really know what she was doing" unconsensual. And at 20, that's hard...

FITZCORE1252's picture

"So, it’s IMPOSSIBLE that in a consensual sexual act there might be some injuries? Heard of “rough sex”?"


FITZCORE1252's picture

Regarding the "victim":

Read it, spot on.

"you think she’s a gold digging slut". Well since you can't stop putting words in my mouth, I'll chose to end this debate on top....

Real quick though, there's a great morning show on the radio out here called the "BJ Shea morning experience" (biggest in Western Washington). I'd recommend giving it a listen (stream, podcast, whatever). He's had men on his show that have had their lives RUINED by false rape accusations (and the courts have recognized this).

He's also spearheaded a term which applies to an enormous number of "men" in my are and I believe clearly applies to you, "vagitized", give it a listen, see if I'm wrong.

In parting I just want to reiterate a couple things:

1. 'C-O-N-V-I-C-T-E-D' rapist should be castrated

2. Ben hasn't been charged with anything (innocent 'till PROVEN guilty... novel concept)

3. Vaginal bleeding obviously means jack-shit, or they'd have a case (show me a link that says she had bruising and cuts "on her vagina", that could still happen in a sexual encounter). Let's not forget women do bleed NATURALLY there.

4. Sure there was DNA on her. She had consensual sex, Durrr

5. Bitches be lyin': I was gonna insert a shit-ton of links right here, but the Lounge didn't like it, thought it was "spammy". There's plenty of info out there, if you ever want to look at the otherside of the coin, I won't hold my breath.

Fitz out


Asshalo's picture

The money quote is taken directly from an ESPN article that I reference in the original post. It's also in the DA's press release. It may help to read it as Mr. Harlan has left out a few pieces, particularly where it talks about the physical evidence.

By the way, I think a medical examiner would be able to tell the difference between menstrual flow and vaginal injuries. It's a pretty invasive procedure, but it really pales in comparison to having the defense try to do everything within their power to get the women to breakdown. Again, factor in having to relive the event in public.

If you don't want me to call you out on being sexists then I wouldn't use terms like "vaginitis" or "bitches be lying". Although you didn't use the word "slut" you essentially are. You haven't argued why the female is lying about the accusation other than that she wanted the sex and money-- which are both stereotypes. Yes, men do get falsely accused of sexual assault, but you haven't explained why that is the case with Big Ben.

FITZCORE1252's picture

"If you don’t want me to call you out on being sexists"

Couldn't care less, what you call me, let alone, what you think of me (to be brutally honest). As I stated, this is a subject that is quite near my heart (I feel no need to expand). I feel ZERO need to appease you in any way, shape, or form.

Nothing against you personally, we obviously just interpret the "F-A-C-T-S" of this case a bit differently.


Dammit, I keep getting sucked back in


FITZCORE1252's picture

"Yes, men do get falsely accused of sexual assault, but you haven’t explained why that is the case with Big Ben."

I shouldn't have to, the United States Legal System did it for me. Maybe you should write a Senator or something... The 'burden of proof' is yours.

It's been real... OUT


Asshalo's picture

Glad to see you've given up trying to refute the physical evidence.

PackersRS's picture

Wait a minute, Asshalo. So now Roethlisberger must be proven NOT GUILTY???

Let's do this then: Let's skip this whole checks and balances thingy... Ah, the good ole Iraq. In there, this r*pist wouldn't be let free. He would've gotten what he deserves, as he can't prove he didn't r*pe FOR SURE.

When the prosecutors prove that, without reasonable doubt, Roethlisberger is guilty, then he'll be sent to prison. Oh wait, they didn't even press charges. Neither did the girl... But I'm pretty sure there's a whole theory about both not pressing charges. No, it couldn't possibly be because he didn't do it, and that she's at fault. It couldn't be...

That's laughable! Don't you think if the prosecutors had at least some proof that he did it, they wouldn't press charges? Imagine what would do to their careers, to be the ones that sent Roethlisberger to jail! Now, imagine what would do to their careers if they'd pressed charges, wasted government money, without clear evidence, and Ben had been set free...

These people have years of experience. If they had any case, they'd pressed charges. Could it be that they made a mistake? Yes. Could even be that they are corrupt? Yes. But it's not the most plausible situation, this theory of conspiracy...

FITZCORE1252's picture

"So now Roethlisberger must be proven NOT GUILTY???"

You are a breath of fresh air RS. I was waiting for someone to "man-up" and get my back here. Kudos.

Asshalo's picture

RS, read the DA's comments, look at the physical evidence and then actually read my post. DAs never give the facts of a criminal incident away like that if the case isn't going to trial. He essentially says a sexual assault occurs, referring to the female as a "victim" and going into graphic detail that her injuries were of a violent sexual nature with a male. The burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, as it should be. But in order to prove that, the DA needed the victim's testimony. Frankly, I think she needs to speak up if she wants to incriminate him, but again I don't blame her for not wanted to relive that at trial and in the public eye.

"No, it couldn’t possibly be because he didn’t do it, and that she’s at fault. " Yes, it is possible it was her fault her genitals were, cut, bruised and bleeding, that the male DNA was not Roethisburgers. Feel free to explain how a scenario like that would be likely. As the DA says, the essiential facts are there we just don't know what went on in that bathroom.

Also read the last paragraph a little closer. I don't think Roesthlesberger should go to jail, simply he's lucky he's not and then there's my overall discontent with how the story is being reported. Here is is:
"Feel free to answer these questions. However, the truth is we will not know whether Roethlisberger truly committed sexual assault this year or in 2008 and many will have their reservations. At the very least, the material facts related to a very serious crime are being marginalized by forces that not acting in the best interest of the victim or justice."

Asshalo's picture

Update: the DA just released the evidence from the case. Glad to see ESPN and other outlets are taking this a more seriously.

PackersRS's picture

Sorry, hadn't read the last pharagraph. Then I agree, in part.

My point isn't to say that he's guilty or not, but that the evidences aren't that much clear to convict him, so it's not an incredible injustice that's being commited, from what's out there.

He could be guilty and the DA could be acting poorly/corruptly.

But we're dealing with crime here. It's a very serious accusation that they're corrupt, and that he's guilty. It must be exhaustedly proven so.

I don't think anyone can prove that it's "being marginalized by forces that not acting in the best interest of the victim or justice". I don't think anyone without access to investigate this first hand (a.k.a. not get their info from the media) can make those assumptions, that's just it...

Asshalo's picture

“being marginalized by forces that not acting in the best interest of the victim or justice”

I'm not saying there's some big conspiracy theory here (think I was too vague with that statement)), simply that the media isn't really reporting what it should be surrounding a sexual assault case. This is more than an accusation, as the DA's original report indicated and now that (1) more evidence has been released (2) we know the original police officer handling the report was fired. More specifically, the media discourse surround this report has been more of a sexists bro-code ("we'll what you do in your own time is private" sort of matter) than a reporting of objective facts.

PackersRS's picture

Well, I'm not in US to watch what's passing on TV (plus those MFs shut down any ESPN and NFL Network stream...), so I can't say it precisely.

But I've read quite a bit of "he's guilty, hang him already!"...

And there's a real problem with reporting of objective facts from the media, because most people want some opinion with the legal jibber-jabber, so that they don't need to think much and can just accuse him or the girl...

BTW, don't know if I sounded like I had the oppinion that he's not guilty, because I don't. I don't care one bit about him to defend him. My opinion is just that, from what I've seen, it's not out of the ordinary that he's not charger or convicted. Just don't find the evidences all that incriminating. They support enough for more than an accusation, but not for a clear conviction.

And I also think they fired the police officer out of media pressure, more than incompetence. But something deeper could come out, bribe, etc..

Asshalo's picture

Oh definitely, I don't think the story should be sensationalized either way because that doesn't help victims of sexual assault either or innocent men accused of it. But I still firmly believe, the real facts surrounding the case weren't being brought up objectively, especially by ESPN. Yes, they reported a police officer on the case was fired, but did not go into details about how he mishandled confessions from the accuser. And by and large the facts from the case weren't reported, especially after the DA's press release.

“he’s guilty, hang him already!" Although there has been more backlash on the story in the past week, I would say it's from sources outside the mainstream media and they're more character concerns than legal incitements. I don't think anyone is saying he deserves to go to jail, simply that this should be taken more seriously. I mean the guy has been accused of showing his genitals to a 16 year old the same night. Again, I don't think anyone is saying he should go to jail, but his character should be called into question.

Asshalo's picture

I originally agreed with you on the police officer, but now that I've read into it more, I think he mishandled the questioning and I think the DA agreed.

Jeremiah'sJohnson's picture

Just another "example" of White Male Privilege..or what is outlined below.

This is Your Nation on White Privilege (Updated)by Tim Wise
September 13, 2008, 12:01 pm

By Tim Wise

For those who still can’t grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because “every family has challenges,” even as black and Latino families with similar “challenges” are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

White privilege is when you can call yourself a “fuckin’ redneck,” like Bristol Palin’s boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll “kick their fuckin' ass,” and talk about how you like to “shoot shit” for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.

White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.

White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don’t all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you’re “untested.”

White privilege is being able to say that you support the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance because “if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it’s good enough for me,” and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the “under God” part wasn’t added until the 1950s--while if you're black and believe in reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), you're a dangerous and mushy liberal who isn't fit to safeguard American institutions.

White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.

White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto is “Alaska first,” and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she’s being disrespectful.

White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you’re being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college and the fact that she lives near Russia, you’re somehow being mean, or even sexist.

White privilege is being able to convince white women who don’t even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a “second look.”

White privilege is being able to fire people who didn’t support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.

White privilege is when you can take nearly twenty-four hours to get to a hospital after beginning to leak amniotic fluid, and still be viewed as a great mom whose commitment to her children is unquestionable, and whose "next door neighbor" qualities make her ready to be VP, while if you're a black candidate for president and you let your children be interviewed for a few seconds on TV, you're irresponsibly exploiting them.

White privilege is being able to give a 36-minute speech in which you talk about lipstick and make fun of your opponent, while laying out no substantive policy positions on any issue at all, and still manage to be considered a legitimate candidate, while a black person who gives an hour speech the week before, in which he lays out specific policy proposals on several issues, is still criticized for being too vague about what he would do if elected.

White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God’s punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you’re just a good church-going Christian, but if you’re black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you’re an extremist who probably hates America.

White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a “trick question,” while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O’Reilly means you’re dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.

White privilege is being able to go to a prestigious prep school, then to Yale and Harvard Business School (George W. Bush), and still be seen as an "average guy," while being black, going to a prestigious prep school, then Occidental College, then Columbia, and then Harvard Law, makes you "uppity" and a snob who probably looks down on regular folks.

White privilege is being able to graduate near the bottom of your college class (McCain), or graduate with a C average from Yale (W.), and that's OK, and you're still cut out to be president, but if you're black and you graduate near the top of your class from Harvard Law, you can't be trusted to make good decisions in office.

White privilege is being able to dump your first wife after she's disfigured in a car crash so you can take up with a multi-millionaire beauty queen (who you then go on to call the c-word in public) and still be thought of as a man of strong family values, while if you're black and married for nearly 20 years to the same woman, your family is viewed as un-American and your gestures of affection for each other are called "terrorist fist bumps."

White privilege is when you can develop a pain-killer addiction, having obtained your drug of choice illegally like Cindy McCain, go on to beat that addiction, and everyone praises you for being so strong, while being a black guy who smoked pot a few times in college and never became an addict means people will wonder if perhaps you still get high, and even ask whether or not you may have sold drugs at some point.

White privilege is being able to sing a song about bombing Iran and still be viewed as a sober and rational statesman, with the maturity to be president, while being black and suggesting that the U.S. should speak with other nations, even when we have disagreements with them, makes you dangerously naive and immature.

White privilege is being able to say that you hate "gooks" and "will always hate them," and yet, you aren't a racist because, ya know, you were a POW, so you're entitled to your hatred, while being black and noting that black anger about racism is understandable, given the history of your country, makes you a dangerous bigot.

White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism and an absent father is apparently among the "lesser adversities" faced by other politicians, as Sarah Palin explained in her convention speech.

And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to blame Barack Obama for things now, even though unemployment was skyrocketing, people were losing their homes, inflation was rising, and the U.S. was increasingly isolated from world opinion, under George W. Bush, just because white voters aren’t sure about that whole “change” thing. Ya know, it’s just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain…

White privilege is, in short, the problem.

Alex Tallitsch's picture

This was a long post. But, I hate to admit, I agree with quite a bit of it. First time for everything.

Asshalo's picture
PackersRS's picture

Damn, that's actually funny...

PackersRS's picture

I don't kno man... I'm hispanic (I'm white, but I'm from Brazil, so...), and I've always been threated a little bit differently in there.

And my father, as an exchange student, in the 60's, in Racine? He's pale as it gets, but racism was everywhere...

But I think the text generalizes. Does it exist? Absolutely. But you can't take some crazy mfckers and say they're the norm. Yeah, Faux Noise is an entire station of that garbage. But, from what I've seen, it doesn't portrait the majority of americans or the system itself...

Asshalo's picture

Oh, definitely, I think we're beyond the point where society and its various institutions are overtly racists, sexists and homophobic (though it still exists). I'm going at more of an unconscious ideology that surrounds relations in society and language. Racism, sexism, class struggles (though we seem to think they don't exist in the US) and homophobia are deeper issues than calling someone a derogatory name or beating someone because of whatever affiliation. You have to look at ways people are treated across different demographics by institutions and society and how they're portrayed in the media to find institutionalized ideologies. In this case, we'de be taking this accusation much more seriously if Roesthlesberger were black, he were more of an expendable player, and if the media reported sexual assault a little more objectively.

Anyway, my views are on the table, but here is an article from a Pittsburg newspaper that I though really reported the incident in an objective way:

Thanks for the comments RS and FItz! I know I can be stubburn, but I really appreciate when you throw it back at me, especially if you don't agree.

Log in to comment, upload your game day photos and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.

Or log in with Facebook


"A school without football is in danger of deteriorating into a medieval study hall. "
"I firmly believe that any man’s finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle – victorious."
"The Bears still suck!"